Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on January 6 of this year, the majority leader stood on the Senate floor and told us that education would be a high priority for the Senate. This is exactly what he said: Education is going to be a central issue this year. Democrats say it is important and it will be a high priority. Republicans say it will be a high priority. I am sorry to say Republicans cannot make that claim today. I want to take a few moments this afternoon, along with some of my colleagues, to assess where education is on the leadership's priority list. We have less than 7 legislative days, and that is counting Mondays and Fridays--we do not do much on Mondays and Fridays--before the end of the fiscal year. There is one Education bill that must be enacted, and that is the Education appropriations bill. Despite proclamations that education will be a top priority, the Senate has been working on all but 1 of the 13 appropriations bills. We have done at least some work on 12 appropriations bills. We have 1 left. Dead last: education. This is a list of all of the appropriations bills: Military construction, No. 1 on the list--the President has already signed that--leg branch; Treasury; District of Columbia; Transportation; Defense; energy and water; Commerce-Justice-State; Interior; Agriculture; and VA-HUD, the full committee approved VA-HUD last week, and it will be on the floor this week. Education, no action taken. It is dead last on that list, and education is supposed to be a high priority with the leadership in the Senate? Those are wrong priorities. Education should be at the top of this list, not at the bottom of the list. Despite a valiant effort by the chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Specter, the Education appropriations bill has not even been written. Senator Specter has fought every day to move this bill forward. He tried in June, July, August, and September. He tried again last week, and we cannot even meet to mark up the bill. If that is not bad enough, the leadership has robbed the Education bill to pay for other bills. As a result, we are looking at deep cuts in all of the programs funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. Not only is education dead last on the calendar, it is dead last for resources. Our subcommittee started with an allocation, an allocation we received earlier this year, substantially below a freeze from last year. If that is not bad enough, it is even worse now. Last week, the leadership staged another raid on education and took $7.276 billion in budget authority, $4.969 billion in outlays, from education and other essential priorities in the bill so they can get the VA-HUD bill to committee. Our subcommittee allocation is $15.5 billion below a freeze. That means we are facing a whopping 17-percent cut in education. This chart illustrates that. In fiscal year 1999, the year we are in right now, we had slightly more than $89 billion. This year, where we stand right now, we have $73.6 billion. That is a 17.3-percent cut that will be across the board. What does that impact? A lot of things. Here is one: That cut will impact reducing class size and improving teacher quality. This cut will force communities to lay off 5,246 newly hired teachers. These are the the teachers hired this year, for whom we put money in, for reducing class size. They will have to be let go after just 1 year. Funding will be cut for the Teacher Quality Enhancement Program for 24 States and 52 partnerships to improve recruitment and training of teachers. That is where we are right now. We came to the Chamber last Thursday and talked about this issue. Later on in the day, the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, came to the Chamber and said: I would like to correct the record, because I know I heard a number of my colleagues say the Republican budget is slashing education, it's at the lowest end, it's the last appropriation bill we are taking up. Let me correct the record. He says: One, the budget the Republicans passed earlier this year had an increase for education. . . . The budget. We are not talking about the budget. We are talking about actual money. I do not care what the budget said. I want to know where the real money is. When that budget got to our appropriations bill, we were cut below a freeze for last year, and certainly the leadership ought to know that. Then he said: The Appropriations Committee has yet to mark up the Labor- HHS bill. Our Education bill. Not that we have not tried. Senator Specter tried in June, July, August, and September to bring it up, and we are not allowed to bring it up. We are not allowed to mark it up. Mr. Nickles said: I understand from Senator Specter and others they plan on appropriating $90 billion. The amount of money we have in the current fiscal year is $83.8 billion. That is off a little bit. He says: So that is an increase of about $6.2 billion. . . . That is an increase of about 9 percent. That is well over inflation. I am quoting Senator Nickles. Our assistant majority leader says: I think it is too much. I think we should be freezing spending. He is talking about education. He says it is too much. He says we have $90 billion. That is not so. Right now we have a total of $73.6 billion for our committee. That is it. If Mr. Nickles has $90 billion, I wish he would show me the money. We would love to mark it up. We would love to give education an increase. With all due respect to my friend from Oklahoma, the assistant majority leader, I wholeheartedly disagree with him that we freeze at last year's level of funding for education. I will go into that a little bit later, but we need an increase in education because of what is happening around the country. Mr. Nickles said: I think we should be freezing spending. That says it all. The leadership is not committed to increased investments in education. If they had their way, according to the assistant majority leader, they would freeze funding for education. We need additional investments in education. Why? Let's look at it this way: The average school building in the United States is 42 years old; 14 million children attend classes in buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. Enrollment is booming. There are more children in U.S. schools than at any time in our history. Class sizes are expanding. It is not unusual for elementary schools to have 30 to 35 kids in a class. Our schools are literally bursting at the seams to accommodate the 53.2 million students enrolled in public schools. These students need teachers; they need the latest technology; they need computers in the classrooms if we are going to compete in the next century, in the next millennium. So when the assistant majority leader says he wants to freeze education funding at last year's level, that says it all. They are not going to make education a priority. They do not care what is happening with the burgeoning classroom sizes. There are priorities and there are priorities. The leadership found $16 billion more for the Pentagon. It is interesting that this is $4 billion even more than what the Pentagon asked for. Having spent a number of years myself in the military and having been on the Appropriations Committee for a number of years, I can say, without any fear of contradiction, I have never seen, nor do I think I will live long enough to ever see, the Pentagon ask for less money than they actually need. They always ask for more money than they need. Yet the leadership said that is not even enough; we are going to give you $4 billion more. I have heard one plan after another for how we are going to fund education. The assistant majority leader said we have $90 billion, but we only have $73 billion. I do not know where he found this money. I challenge the assistant majority leader to come on the floor and tell us where we get the $90 billion. I would like to see it. They are talking about delaying the earned-income tax credit for poor working Americans. How about that for funding education. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then there is talk about cutting Medicaid, or a large across-the- board cut in the bill. Then we have heard talk about extending the fiscal year; we are going to have another month. We are not going to have 12 months in a year. We are now going to have 13 months in a year. I have even heard grade school kids laughing about that one. That does not pass the laugh test around here. All I can say is President Clinton sent us a budget that increased funding for education programs which had the offsets necessary so we did not have to raid Social Security and Medicare. It was not as much of an increase as I would like to have seen, but at least it is an increase and not a 17-percent cut. He had the offsets there, too. In fact, whenever the leadership so deigns that our education subcommittee can meet and mark up our bill, I will propose an offset that will deal with raising $5.9 billion next year for cutting teen smoking, which has been fully calculated by the CBO to raise that much money. So we get two things: We will cut teen smoking and raise some money for education. Over the past 5 years, we have had many legislative fights over the education budget. In 1995, the Republican leadership was so insistent on cutting education they shut down the Federal Government to make their point. The American people made their views well known at the time. They said: Do not cut education. As a result, the cuts were restored and additional investments were made. I must say that since 1996, education investments have increased, although the leadership has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the table every single year. And this year is no exception. The American people understand this. They are telling us loudly and clearly to make education a top priority. A recent ABC News poll found that three out of four Americans say improving education will be very important in the next election. Another poll, done by the University of Chicago, found that 73 percent of Americans favor increasing Federal investment in education. Yet our assistant majority leader says we need to freeze it. Someone is out of step with the American people. Lastly, there is one other chart I want to show about what is happening. I continually hear from my constituents in Iowa and from Iowa legislators, and others, that property taxes keep going up all the time. Property taxes are going up. State legislators are feeling the pinch about putting more and more money into education. They are wondering what is happening. This chart shows what is happening. In fiscal year 1980, of all the money spent in this country on elementary and secondary education, the Federal Government provided 11.9 percent. In 1998, last year, the Federal Government provided only 7.6 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education. The Federal Government, through the 1980s--the Reagan and Bush years and on into this decade--had been cutting the amount of Federal support for elementary and secondary education. This gap from about 11.9 percent to 7.6 percent is made up in property taxes. It is made up in local taxes and State taxes--where they have been asked and see the need to fill in that gap. So we have failed in our responsibility to adequately help our States and local communities fund education. I see my friend from Hawaii is here. I just want to make one other short comment and I will yield the floor to him. Last Thursday, the assistant majority leader said something about teachers. He said: I heard both of my colleagues say-- Being me since I was the one speaking-- ``Boy, we need more Federal teachers or more school buildings.'' Then Senator Nickles said: Is that really the business of the Federal Government? I never said we need more Federal teachers. But I did say we need more local teachers. We need more teachers to help reduce the size of classes. I believe that is a legitimate Federal responsibility, going out and helping our local communities. Not a one of those teachers we hired this year to reduce class size works for the Federal Government. They work for local school districts. But we are doing our part in helping. To say that we need more school buildings is right. There are more children in U.S. schools than at any time in our history--53.2 million students. The average age of our buildings is 42 years old. Yes, Mr. Nickles, we need some newer schools, more schools, and we need some more computers in classrooms; we need more qualified teachers and more teachers to reduce class size. But, again, education is last on the list. Last, we are facing the end of the year. We have a 17-percent cut where we stand right now in education--dead last. So much for Republican priorities on education. I yield the floor. Do I control the time, Mr. President?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, for a great statement on education. That is why I am taking the floor now, to talk about it and to lay out what has happened this year in education funding. I think my colleague, my friend from Arkansas, has really encapsulated it. There should be no higher priority in our country than the education of our children. I thank my colleague. We will work together on this. Education should not be a partisan issue. It should be bipartisan; it should have strong support from both parties. However, I am constrained to say at the beginning of this year, the Republican leadership said they were going to make education No. 1, the No. 1 priority. That is what the Senate majority leader said in January. That is what the chairman of the Budget Committee said. I am the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee for education. When we got our initial allocation, we were then at a cut, in the beginning, of $8 billion below a freeze from last year. I think my colleague, the chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Specter, has done a splendid job trying to get us moving forward. We were supposed to have a markup in May. That was postponed. This is for education. Then in June, postponed. Then we were supposed to mark up after the Fourth of July recess--postponed. They were supposed to do it before the August recess. We were supposed to have marked up last week--postponed. We were supposed to mark up this week--postponed. Why? Because the education subcommittee's funding has been raided to pay for other things. So I say to my friend from Arkansas, we have gone from No. 1 to No. 13. We can act on every other appropriations bill in the Senate, but education is dead last. Talk about priorities. I do not run the floor. The Republican leadership runs this floor and how we bring up the bills. We have not even brought the education appropriations bill up yet. We have 14 days left in this fiscal year. We passed a bill today that includes a pay raise for all the Senators and Congressmen. We passed that. We had time for that. We had the money for that. We had the money for defense. We have had the money for everything else. But we do not seem to have the money for education. What kind of a signal does that send? I said the other day, I feel sort of like that movie actor Bill Murray in ``Ground Hog Day.'' We keep getting the promise we are going to mark up education and it never happens. It never quite gets there. We never quite get to that day. So we have gone from 1st to 13th--dead last--in the Senate in terms of the priority for education. So what happened this week? Again, the education budget was raided, with $7.5 billion taken out of the education budget for VA-HUD. I am all for veterans. We have to fund our veterans' programs and medical care and housing. But they had to take it out of our education budget. In fact, even as I speak right now, the Appropriations Committee is marking up the VA-HUD bill with money that ought to be in there for education. So where does that leave us? That has left our Appropriations Subcommittee $15.5 billion below a freeze from last year. That translates into a 17-percent cut below last year. What does that mean for education? When you factor out education from all the other things we have in our bill, that is a $5.6 billion cut in education below what we had last year. And education is the No. 1 priority of the Republican leadership? Say again? I do not understand this. We can fund everything else. We can pass every other bill. We can give huge increases to the Pentagon. But right now, as we stand here today, education is going to take a $5.6 billion cut. That translates into real cuts--real cuts for teachers, for example. We figured this out. We had an initiative last year of reducing class sizes. Everyone agrees, reducing class sizes is a goal that we ought to be pursuing diligently. This year we funded reducing class sizes by $1.2 billion. If this cut, where it stands right now, goes through, we will have to fire 5,246 teachers we just hired will lose their jobs. So 5,000 teachers we hired for this school year, to reduce class sizes, will have to be let go with the 17-percent cut. Then I looked to see what it would do in my own State of Iowa. In Iowa, for example, some of the things that are most meaningful in education, title I--the title I reading and math program will be cut $11.3 million with this 17-percent cut; special education, IDEA, will be cut $8.5 million; class size reduction--the one I just spoke about; cutting the teachers--will be cut $1.6 million in the State of Iowa; safe and drug-free schools will be cut $717,000 from a $3.6 million level. That is just in my State of Iowa. I suggest to Senators that they might want to take a look at how much in each of their States' education funding will be cut where we are right now with that 17-percent across-the-board cut with what we have in our Education appropriations bill right now. Check your State. Then go back and tell your Governors and tell your State legislators, tell your school boards, tell your principals and superintendents and teachers how much education is going to get cut and how much they are going to have to come up with in increased property taxes. I bet the Governors will love that in the States. So right now education is dead last in the priorities in what is going on in the Senate. What does that say to our kids? What does that say to the people in general? We have increased defense spending. Oh, yes, we increased defense spending $16 billion. We have cut education by $5.6 billion. I guess we are going to have the strongest military in the world, and we are going to have a bunch of dummies in it or have more money in the military for remedial math and reading programs to bring them up to standards. Mr. President, I end where I started. We went from first in priority to dead last. That is unacceptable. We have to turn it around for the future of this country. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gorton for permitting me at this time to speak as in morning business before they get on with the important business of the Interior appropriations bill. I want to take this time because I was unable to be here earlier when Senator Feingold, Senator Reed, I think, and Senator Boxer spoke on the issue of East Timor. I want to take a few minutes to share with my colleagues what I saw during my recent trip to East Timor with a delegation that included Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Congressman McGovern of Massachusetts. We were in East Timor on August 20 and 21, just a little over 2 weeks ago. The purpose of our trip was to assess the conditions in East Timor leading up to the August 30 referendum. It was a trip that in some ways was uplifting but at the end--I could smell it in the air--I had a foreboding of things to come. On the first day we traveled to the capital of East Timor, Dili and spent the night there. The next day, under the auspices of the United Nations, we took a helicopter to Maliana, and then from Maliana to Suai before returning to Jakarta. What was so uplifting about it was to see so many people willing to risk their lives to be able to vote; people whose homes were burned down, their lives threatened, families threatened, and yet they were going to vote. When the vote was taken, over 98 percent of those registered came out to vote. Mr. President, 78 percent of the people of East Timor voted for independence and not to stay with Indonesia, a clear-cut victory for independence and, I can say from firsthand meetings with U.N. and U.S. officials as well as with people on the ground in East Timor, that had it not been for the open assaults by the militias and intimidation and threats, that 78 percent probably would have been about 90 percent for independence. When I left East Timor, Senator Reed and Congressman McGovern and I all called on the United Nations to send a peacekeeping force immediately to East Timor, either on the day of the vote or the day after the vote. We all had a sense of what might come if there was not a stable force on the ground to prevent the violence from happening in the first place. Upon returning to Jakarta, we met an hour and a half with President Habibie of Indonesia, and I will have more to say about that in a minute. We conveyed to him our concerns with the security situation in East Timor. He assured us time and time again in the hour-and-a-half meeting that Indonesia would maintain order in East Timor. I was there with Congressman McGovern and with U.S. Ambassador Roy. President Habibie assured us the Indonesian Army would maintain peace, harmony and law and order after the vote was taken. My fears of what would happen have been confirmed in the most horrific manner. As we have all witnessed on CNN and in the newspapers over the past several days, the militias have gone on a killing rampage acting on the orders and with the assistance of the Indonesian military and the Indonesian police forces. I must tell my colleagues, when we were in Maliana, for example, a couple days before we were there, the militias had put on street demonstrations right in front of the U.N. compound armed to the teeth with guns. Amongst these militias were the Indonesian military and the Indonesian police in clear violation of the agreement they had signed with Portugal and the United Nations on May 5, 1999. Every U.N. observer with whom I spoke, every single one without exception, said the militias were backed by and armed by the Indonesian military and that the military and the civilian police were supporting the militias openly. Now that these militias have gone on a rampage, one must ask, where is the Indonesian military and where is the Indonesian police? The Indonesian military had 10,000 to 15,000 military people there. They could have stopped it. They either chose not to or they are actively supporting this murderous rampage. Either is unacceptable. They are attacking unarmed civilians. They are rounding up refugees, putting them in trucks, and trucking them to unknown destinations. They are tearing families apart. Just as we saw in Kosovo, the same thing is happening in East Timor. Husbands are separated from wives, parents separated from their children and carted off in trucks into the back country, and no one knows what is happening to them. The same thing is happening as happened in Kosovo. When we were in East Timor, we spent an evening with Bishop Belo, the Catholic bishop of East Timor. I will point out a bit of history. East Timor for the last I think it was 400-some years was under Portuguese domination. About 200 years ago, Portugal formally annexed East Timor. It was a colony of Portugal up to 1975 when Portugal left. Indonesia brutally invaded East Timor in 1975 and annexed it the next year. The United Nations has never recognized Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. Through the years since then, the East Timorese have suffered mightily. Over 200,000 East Timorese, it is estimated, were brutally slaughtered by the Indonesian military over these years. But they persisted. They persisted in wanting their independence. In 1991, sadly, East Timor got worldwide attention when Indonesian troops opened fire on mourners who were at a funeral for an independence supporter in Dili. It was a big funeral. There were 200 men, women, and children slaughtered by the Indonesian military in 1991. Through all of this, Bishop Belo, East Timorese by birth and upbringing, ordained a Catholic priest in Portugal, came back to East Timor, elevated by Pope John Paul II to be a bishop. Two years ago on June 18, Bishop Belo was in Washington and said a mass of peace and reconciliation at St. Peter's Church. A number of us were there that morning. That was the first time I had the occasion to meet Bishop Belo. Of course, the year before that, in 1996, Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos Horta jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize for their peaceful resistance through the years to the Indonesian takeover of East Timor. A year after that, Bishop Belo was here and said mass at St. Peter's, as I said, and we were there. It was for me a very touching moment, to spend an evening in Bishop Belo's home in Dili with Senator Reed and Congressman McGovern, to have dinner in his home and talk with him about what was happening in East Timor and to hear him pour out his heart about how many people had died and the suffering of the East Timorese people and his hopes and his prayers. We held hands around the table and he led us in a prayer that, regardless of what the outcome of the vote would be, East Timorese would not kill each other and that the Indonesian military would quietly leave. I am saddened to say that 3 days ago the militias entered the compound of Bishop Belo and burned his house down, the very house in which we had dinner not more than two weeks ago. He was able to escape and is now in Australia. We sat in Bishop Belo's dining room and saw all the mementos he had. He had a picture of himself shaking hands and being greeted by President Clinton, a bust of President Kennedy that was given to him by Representative Patrick Kennedy who visited there a few years ago, a signed picture from President Bush who had met with him, and, of course, his Nobel Peace Prize. Now that house has been reduced to ashes. There were several thousand East Timorese in his compound being protected by the church. Eyewitnesses saw the militias killing people and some were being put on trucks--this is where the families were separated--and taken out into the countryside. On Monday, I spoke with Jose Ramos Horta, his corecipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. He said in the 500-year history of East Timor, the church has never been attacked. There have been wars and there has been fighting, but the church has never been attacked. He even said that when the Japanese took over East Timor during World War II they never attacked the church. As bad as that is, I have an even sadder story to tell. We went to the community of Suai, which is in the southwestern part of East Timor, because we had heard there were about 1,500 people who had taken up refuge in a church compound. This was now 9 days before the vote. We wanted to go there and see for ourselves. So Senator Reed, Congressman McGovern, and I went there. Truly, there were 1,500 people in this compound. The buhpati, as he is called, the mayor, the person who runs the city, had cut off the water. It was very hot, and he had cut off the water to these people. Who were these people? These were people who had been driven from their homes because the militias feared that they were going to vote for independence. Men, women, children, families, all gathered in this churchyard, had their water cut off. Then the U.N. tried to get through a truckload of food. They wouldn't even let the food get through. The two priests who were protecting these people were Father Hilario and Father Francisco. This is a picture I had taken with them at the church compound. Father Hilario and Father Francisco, two of the nicest individuals you ever want to meet, both Catholic priests, only doing their job protecting people. They weren't speaking out for independence or anything like that. They were simply doing their job as the parish priests. I learned this morning that yesterday the militias entered their house, took these two priests out and killed them, 2 weeks after we saw them. Unarmed, they were. Militias took them out and brutally killed them. That is what is happening in East Timor today. We have a responsibility that goes back 23 years. When Indonesia first invaded East Timor in 1975, the United States took the position that we supported Indonesia. I was at that time a Member of the House of Representatives and, with other Members of the House, introduced a resolution condemning Indonesia for their brutal invasion of East Timor at that time. In the years that followed, hundreds of thousands, almost 200,000 East Timorese lost their lives to the brutality of the Indonesian military. Through it all, they maintained their cohesion. They maintained their peaceful resistance. On August 30, 98 percent of the registered voters came out to vote in the face of machetes and bullets and threats. Despite being driven from their homes and having their homes burned down; they voted 78 percent for independence. If we stand for anything, we should stand for the right of self- determination and independence when people exercise their right to vote. That is what we stand for as Americans. That is our philosophical foundation. It was a free and fair vote, even though the militias were intimidating people. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. It seems to me that for the bastion of democracy, those of us in this country who believe so deeply in the right of the secret ballot, the right of people to be able to vote for their futures, to see this happen and for us to stand back and do nothing is shameful. We ought to be on the front lines of asking the United Nations to go in there with a peacekeeping force now. I had asked the United Nations and the Clinton administration to put pressure on the U.N. to send a peacekeeping force to East Timor on the day of the vote or the day after the vote. If we had done that, we wouldn't have had these killings that have gone on. We could have had a little bit of preventive action. But, no, we didn't do it. We said we had to wait until the Indonesians asked us to come in. It is clear that the Government of Indonesia is not going to keep law and order there. It is clear from every eyewitness account we have that the Indonesian military is behind the militias and their brutal attacks on innocent civilians. So now it is incumbent upon the world community to answer the call to go to East Timor to restore peace and stability. I will shortly be introducing a resolution to that effect that basically congratulates the East Timorese on their vote, condemns the violence, and calls upon our U.N. Ambassador to seek the United Nations Security Council's immediate authorization to deploy an international force to East Timor to restore peace and stability. Already Australia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Thailand, Pakistan, Malaysia, and the Philippines have all said they will contribute forces. Today, we learned that China has basically said they are open minded on this issue. Well, now is the time for the United States to take some leadership. I call upon President Clinton to be forceful in calling upon the United Nations to send an international force immediately to East Timor, and we should contribute to this force. We should not shirk our responsibilities in this matter either. To do nothing now would be to fly in the face of everything for which this great country stands for. We were one of those actively encouraging the Indonesians, the Portuguese, the United Nations, and the East Timorese to reach this agreement to allow this vote. We supplied funding and observers for the vote. The Carter Center was actively involved in East Timor, ensuring it would be a free and fair vote and counting the ballots. If we now walk away, if we now say, well, we can't do anything unless Indonesia invites us in to a place that they annexed with brutal force 23 years ago then we are less of an America than we have been in the past. I am deeply saddened by the death of these two priests. I didn't know them well, but I spent some time with them, spoke with them, asked them about what they were doing, asked them about the conditions in their parishes. They were gentle souls just doing their job as shepherds of their flocks, yet taken out and brutally murdered. Lastly, I understand that by tomorrow, the United Nations will remove the 212 people they have there now. I am again asking the President to call upon Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, to not pull out our U.N. people who are there. If we do, we will have no eyes and no ears; we will have no presence at all in East Timor, and the killing rampages we have witnessed over the last several days will only mushroom. I hope the U.N. will keep its people there. I hope the United States will put every ounce of our leadership behind the United Nations to send an international force there within the next 48 hours. If we do, we can save thousands of lives. And we can restore peace and stability. We can tell the rest of the world that when you have a free and fair and open election under U.N. auspices, we are not going to let thugs and murderers take it away from you. That is the kind of America I think we ought to be.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last month I had the honor of accompanying President Clinton and Education Secretary Richard Riley on a visit to Amos Hiatt Middle School in Des Moines, Iowa. We were joined by a high school teacher named Ruth Ann Gaines and an 8th grade student, Catherine Swoboda for a discussion on the need to modernize our nation's schools. Hiatt Middle School opened its doors in 1925 and students spend all but a few hours a week in classrooms built during a time when Americans could not imagine the technological advances that would occur by the end of the century. In 1925, Americans were flocking to movie theaters to see--and hear-- the first talking motion picture--Al Jolson's ``The Jazz Singer.'' The students who walked through the doors of the brand new Hiatt school that year could not imagine IMAX theaters with surround sound where a movie goer actually becomes a part of the film. In 1925, consumers were lining up in department stores to buy novelties like electric phonographs, dial telephones, and self-winding watches. CDS, DVD players, cellular telephones or palm pilots were unthinkable. And, the introduction of state-of-the art technologies like rural electrification and crop dusting were revolutionizing the lives of families and farmers alike. There have been incredible technological and scientific advances in the past seven decades. Yet, our schools have not kept pace with the times. We continue to educate our children in schools built and equipped in bygone eras. Mr. President, Iowa has a long and proud tradition when it comes to public education--a tradition which dates back to before statehood. As a result of the Land Ordinance of 1785, every township in the new Western Territory was required to set aside 640 acres of land for support of public education. Iowa's first elementary school was established in 1830 and the first high school in 1850. In 1858, the Iowa Free School Act laid the foundation for Iowa's public school system. By 1859 the state had 4,200 public schools--some in log cabins. This long commitment to education has brought great results. From 1870 on into this century, Iowa had the nation's highest literacy rate and the nation's highest test scores. Iowa students continue to do well but we must do better. Our public education system has served us well. But, the times have changed dramatically. The thousands of one-room school houses that dotted the countryside served us well for many generations. But time marches on and so must our schools. Just as the pot-belly stove gave way to central heat; candles gave way for electric lights; the blackboard and chalk must make way for the computer. We must make sure that every child and every school can facilitate the technology of the 21st century. However, Iowa State University reports that we need at least $4 billion over the next ten years to repair and upgrade school buildings and Iowa and make sure they can effectively utilize educational technology. Mr. President, the facts about the need to modernize and upgrade our nation's pubic school facilities are well known. The General Accounting Office estimates that 14 million American children attend classes in schools that are unsafe or inadequate and it will cost $112 billion to upgrade existing public schools to overall good condition. In addition, GAO reports that 46 percent of schools lack adequate electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. Enrollment in elementary and secondary schools is at all time high and will continue to grow over the next 10 years making it necessary for the United States to build an additional 6,000 schools. The American Society of Civil Engineers reports that public schools are in worse condition that any other sector of our national infrastructure. I ask unanimous consent that a report card on the nation's infrastructure be inserted in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. To respond to this critical national problem, I am introducing the 21st Century School Modernization Act. I am pleased to have Senator Kennedy, Robb, Levin and Murray as cosponsors of this proposal. This legislation reauthorizes direct federal grants to local school districts for the repair, renovation of construction of public schools. These grants are critically important to districts in impoverished areas that may not benefit from the tax-oriented proposals. Secondly, the bill builds a new partnership with states by creating State Infrastructure Banks to provide subsidized loans for school modernization purposes. Finally, the bill provides grants to assist school districts in the planning and design of new facilities that will serve as the center of the community. The need to rebuild our nation's crumbling public schools is clear and I believe we must fight this battle on two critical fronts--this session's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and by enacting legislation to provide targeted tax relief. The 21st Century School Modernization Act complements tax-oriented plans, such as those proposed by President Clinton and Senators Daschle, Lautenberg and Robb, to provide school modernization tax credits to finance at least $25 billion in public school construction or renovation. Mr. President, if the nicest thing our kids ever see are shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most rundown place they see is their school, what signal are we sending them about the value we place on education and the future? Let me give your some firsthand testimony from Jonathan Kozol's book, Savage Inequalities. Kozol writes about a school in Washington, D.C.'s low-income Anacostia district: Tunisia, a fifth grader in Washington, D.C., tells Kozol: It's like this. The school is dirty. There isn't any playground. There's a hole in the wall behind the principal's desk. What we need to do is first rebuild the school. Build a playground. Plant a lot of flowers. Paint the classrooms. Fix the hole in the principal's office. Buy doors for the toilet stalls in the girl's bathroom. Make it a beautiful clean building. Make it pretty. Way it is, I feel ashamed. Tunisia tells the story better than any politician can. She faces it every day when the school bell rings. We can and we must do a better job for Tunisia and her peers. This is a serious national problem. And, it demands a comprehensive national response. The 21st Century School Modernization Act is a key part of that comprehensive national response and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will inform and empower consumers in the United States through a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without the use of abusive and exploitative child labor. I am joined in my efforts by Senators Hollings and Dorgan. I want to thank them for working with me on this important effort. This is the third time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. I'd like to ask my colleagues to take a moment to look around. Maybe it's the shirt you have on right now. Or the silk tie or blouse. Or the tennis shoes you wear on weekends. Chances are that you have purchased something--perhaps many things-- made with abusive and exploitative child labor. And chances are you were completely unaware that was the case. You will find a label that tells you what size it is, how to care for it and what it costs. But it doesn't tell you about the person who made it. Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization (ILO) released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over two hundred and fifty million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Now when I speak about child labor, I am not talking about 17 year- olds helping out on the family farm or running errands after school. I am speaking about children, often under 12 years old, who are forced to work long hours in hazardous and dangerous conditions many as slaves instead of going to school. On September 23, 1993, the Senate appropriately put itself on record as expressing its principled opposition to the abhorrent practice of exploiting children for commercial gain and asserting that it should be the policy of the United States to prohibit the importation of products made through the use of abusive and exploitative child labor by passing a Sense of the Senate Resolution I introduced. In my view, this was the first step toward ending child labor. Americans in Des Moines or Dallas or Detroit may say, ``What does this have to do with us?'' It is quite simple. By protecting the rights of workers everywhere, we will be protecting jobs and opportunities here at home. A U.S. worker cannot compete with a 12 year old working 12 hours a day for 12 cents. In 1998, the United States imported almost 50 percent of the wearing apparel sold in this country and the garment industry netted $34 billion. According to the Department of Commerce, last year, the United States imported 494.1 million pairs of athletic footwear and produced only 65.3 million here at home. As I have traveled around the country and spoken with people about the issue of abusive and exploitative child labor, I have found that consumers--ordinary Americans--want to get involved. They want information. They want to know if the products they are buying are made by children. According to a survey sponsored by Marymount University, more than three out of four Americans said they would avoid shopping at stores if they were aware that the good sold there were made by exploitative and abusive child labor. They also said that they would be willing to pay an extra $1 on a $20 garment if it were guaranteed to be made under legitimate circumstances. Mr. President it is obvious that consumers don't want to reward companies with their hard earned dollars by buying products made with abusive and exploitative child labor. This issue demands our attention. Our legislation, the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act 1999, will inform and empower consumers in the United States through a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without abusive and exploitative child labor. In my view, a system of voluntary labeling holds the best promise of giving consumers the information they want--and giving the companies that manufacture these products the recognition they deserve. The crux of this legislation is to provide the framework for members of the wearing apparel and sporting goods industry, labor organizations, consumer advocacy and human rights groups along with the Secretaries of Commerce, Treasury and Labor to establish the labeling standard and develop a system to assure compliance that items were not made with abusive and exploitative child labor. Thus, ensuring consumers that the garment or pair of tennis shoes they purchase was made without abusive and exploitative child labor. In my view, Congress can't do it alone through legislation. The Department of Labor can't do it alone through enforcement. It takes all of us from the private sector to labor and human rights groups to take responsibility, to come together to end abusive and exploitative child labor. And I am pleased to say there has recently been promising action to that end. Mr. President, when the private sector decides to take speak up--it certainly can make a difference. In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association has agreed to work with the International Labor Organization to take children out of the garment factories and put them into school--where they belong. As of May 1999, more than 353 schools for former child workers have opened, serving nearly 10,000 children. So, if we can do it in Bangladesh, then we can do it elsewhere. Mr. President, let me be clear, companies can choose to use the label or not to. This bill is not about big government telling the private sector what to do. This bill is centered around this fundamental principle: Let the Buyer Be Aware. This ``Truth in Labeling'' initiative is based on the principle that a fully informed American consumer will make the right, and moral, choice and vote against abusive and exploitative child labor with their pocketbook. We have seen such an approach work effectively with the Rugmark label for hand-knotted carpets from India. It is operating in some European countries. Consumers who want to buy child labor-free carpets can just look for the Rugmark label. I visited the Rugmark headquarters in New Delhi, India last year. Mr. President, this initiative is working. It has succeeded in taking children out of the factories and putting them into schools while providing consumers with the information they need. To date, 1.25 million of carpets have received the Rugmark label. Mr. President, the progress that has been made on eradicating abusive and exploitative child labor is irreversible. Therefore we must continue to more forward. And I believe my bill allows us to do just that. It allows the consumer to know more about the products they buy and give companies that use the label the recognition they deserve. Our nation began this century by working to end abusive and exploitative child labor in America, let us close this century by ending child labor around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1999. The bill I am introducing today prohibits the importation of any product made, whole or in part, by children under the age of 15 who are employed in manufacturing or mining. This is the fifth time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. I would like to thank Senators Hollings, Dorgan, Levin, Mikulski and Kennedy for joining me in this important effort as original cosponsors of this legislation. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that over two hundred and fifty million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Child labor is most prevalent in countries with high adult unemployment rates. According to the ILO, some 61 percent of child workers, nearly 153 million children, are found in Asia; 32 percent, or 80 million, are in Africa and 7 percent, or 175 million, live in Latin America. Adult unemployment rates in some nations runs over 20 percent. In Latin America, for example, about one in every ten children are workers. Furthermore, in many nations where child labor is prevalent, more money is spent and allocated for military expenditures than for education and health services. The situation is as deplorable as it is enormous. In many developing countries children represent a substantial part of the work force and can be found in such industries as rugs, toys, textiles, mining, and sports equipment manufacturing. For instance, it is estimated that 65% of the wearing apparel that Americans purchase is assembled or manufactured abroad, therefore, increasing the chance that these items were made by abusive and exploitative child labor. In the rug industry, Indian and Pakistan produce 95% of their rugs for export. Some of the worst abuses of child labor have been documented in these countries, including bonded and slave labor. Children may also be crippled physically by being forced to work too early in life. For example, a large-scale ILO survey in the Philippines found that more than 60 percent of working children were exposed to chemical and biological hazards, and that 40 percent experienced serious injuries or illnesses. These practices are often underground, but the ILO report points out that children are still being sold outright for a sum of money. Other times, landlords buy child workers from their tenants, or labor ``contractor'' pay rural families in advance in order to take their children away to work in carpet-weaving, glass manufacturing or prostitution. Child slavery of this type has long been reported in South Asia, South-East Asia and West Africa, despite vigorous official denial of its existence. Additionally, children are increasingly being bought and sold across national borders by organized networks. The ILO report states that at least five such international networks trafficking in children exist: from Latin America to Europe and the Middle East; from South and South- East Asia to northern Europe and the Middle East; a European regional market; an associated Arab regional market; and, a West Africa export market in girls. In Pakistan, the ILO reported in 1991 that an estimated half of the 50,000 children working as bonded labor in Pakistan's carpet-weaving industry will never reach the age of 12--victims of disease and malnutrition. I have press reports from India of children freed from virtual slavery in the carpet factories of northern India. Twelve-year-old Charitra Chowdhary recounted his story--he said, ``If we moved slowly we were beaten on our backs with a stick. We wanted to run away but the doors were always locked.'' Mr. President, that's what this bill is about, children, whose dreams and childhood are being sold for a pittance--to factor owners and in markets around the globe. It's about protecting children around the globe and their future. It's about eliminating a major form of child abuse in our world. It's about breaking the cycle of poverty by getting these kids out of factories and into schools. It's about raising the standard of living in the Third World so we can compete on the quality of goods instead of the misery and suffering of those who make them. It's about assisting Third World governments to enforce their laws by ending the role of the United States in providing a lucrative market for goods made by abusive and exploitative child labor and encouraging other nations to do the same. Mr. President, unless the economic exploitation of children is eliminated, the potential and creative capacity of future generations will forever be lost to the factory floor. Mr. President, the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1999 is intended to strengthen existing U.S. trade laws and help Third World countries enforce their child labor laws. The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of Labor to compile and maintain a list of foreign industries and their respective host countries that use child labor in the production of exports to the United States. Once the Secretary of Labor identifies a foreign industry, the Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to prohibit the importation of a product from an identified industry. The entry ban would not apply if a U.S. importer signs a certificate of origin affirming that they took reasonable steps to ensure that products imported from identified industries are not made by child labor. In addition, the President is urged to seek an agreement with other governments to secure an international ban on trade in the products of child labor. Further, any company or individual who would intentionally violate the law would face both civil and criminal penalties. This legislation is not about imposing our standards on the developing world. It's about preventing those manufacturers in the developing world who exploit child labor from imposing their standards on the United States. They are forewarned. If manufacturers and importers insist on investing in child labor, instead of investing in the future of children, I will work to assure that their products are barred from entering the United States. Mr. President, as I said when I first introduced this bill five years ago, it is time to end this human tragedy and our participation in it. It is time for greater government and corporate responsibility. No longer can officials in the Third World or U.S. importers turn a blind eye to the suffering and misery of the world's children. No longer do American consumers want to provide a market for goods produced by the sweat and toil of children. By providing a market for goods produced by child labor, U.S. importers have become part of the problem by perpetuating the impoverishment of poor families. Through this legislation, importers now have the opportunity to become part of the solution by ending this abominable practice. Mr. President, countries do not have to wait until poverty is eradicated or they are fully developed before eliminating the economic exploitation of children. In fact, the path to development is to eliminate child labor and increase expenditures on children such as primary education. In far too many countries, governments spend millions on military expenditures and fail to provide basic educational opportunities to its citizens. As a result, over 130 million children are not in primary school. In conclusion, Mr. President, this legislation places no undue burden on U.S. importers. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would willingly promote the exploitation of children. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would want their products and image tainted by having their products produced by child labor. And I know that no American consumer would knowingly purchase something made with abusive and exploitative child labor. These entities take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their goods; they should also be willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that their goods are not produced by child labor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``National Fund for Health Research Act of 1999''. And I am particularly pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Specter. This bill is similar to legislation I introduced with Senator Specter in the 105th Congress, and with Senator Hatfield during the 104th Congress. The bill gained broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Our proposal would establish a National Fund for Health Research to provide additional resources for health research over and above those provided to the National Institutes of Health in the annual appropriations process. The Fund would greatly enhance the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures and cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that strike Americans. To finance the Fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1 percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the National Fund for Health Research. Each year under our proposal amounts within the National Fund for Health Research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for that fiscal year. The set aside would result in a significant annual budget increase for NIH. In 1994 I argued that any health care reform plan should include additional funding for health research. Systematic health care reform has been taken off the front burner but the need to increase our nation's commitment to health research has not diminished. While health care spending devours over $1 trillion annually our medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States devotes less than 3 percent of its total health care budget to health research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war against disease and disability continues. Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health costs in the long run. For example, the costs of Alzheimer's will more than triple in the coming century--adding further strains to Medicare as the baby boomers retire. We know that through research there is a real hope of a major breakthrough in this area. Simply delaying the onset of Alzheimer's by 5 years would save an estimated $50 billion. Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving patients' quality of life. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase funding for NIH through the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. But the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has put us on track to dramatically decrease discretionary spending, so that the nation's investment in health research through the NIH is likely to decline in real terms unless corrective legislative action is taken. The NIH is not able to fund even 30% of competing research projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. Science and cutting edge medical research are being put on hold. We may be giving up possible cures for diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's and countless other diseases. Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise of cure of treatment for millions of Americans.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999,'' known as RECAA 1999. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell; the distinguished Senate Minority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle; Senator Jeff Bingaman; and Senator Pete Domenici in introducing this legislation. These long awaited amendments will ensure that the United States government meets its responsibility to provide fair and compassionate compensation to the thousands of individuals adversely affected by the mining of uranium and from fallout during the testing of nuclear weapons in the early post-war years. These citizens helped our nation during the Cold War and we must not forget them. In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210) was enacted. RECA, which I was proud to sponsor, affirmed the responsibility of the federal government to compensate individuals who were harmed by the radioactive fallout from atomic testing, for which the government took few precautions to ensure safety. Additionally, workers who have suffered long-term health problems because they were not adequately informed of the dangers faced during uranium mining were eligible for compensation under the act. Administered through the Department of Justice, RECA has been responsible for compensating approximately 6,000 individuals for their injuries, but we can and should help a lot more. While the passage of the 1990 law was a momentous event, I have been carefully monitoring the implementation of the RECA program. I am disturbed over numerous reports from my Utah constituents concerning the burdensome process of filing claims with the Department of Justice. One complaint which I hear far too often is ``that it is easier to compensate a dead miner, than one living with disease.'' We cannot let this injustice continue. We have drafted the RECA Amendments of 1999 in response to these concerns. We should not add a bureaucratic nightmare to the burden of disease and ill-health already carried by these citizens. Moreover, excessive regulatory hurdles have made it too difficult for some deserving individuals to be fairly compensated under the Act. We must streamline and speed up the application process. In addition, advances in our medical knowledge compel us to modify the 1990 Act to define better criteria for compensation and to include diseases that we now know have radiogenic causes. Let me explain how this bill was developed. RECA originally defined a list of 13 compensable diseases based upon the 1988 Radiation Exposed Veterans Compensation Act and the findings of the 1980 report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR-III). In 1992, REVCA was amended based upon the findings of an updated BEIR- IV and -V Reports which defined a host of cancers that are considered for disability compensation due to radiation exposure. In addition, the report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, released in 1995, provides further scientific evidence for changes in the 1990 RECA law. The Committee reviewed 125 current studies and more than 200 public witnesses in evaluating the risks and diseases caused by exposure to radiation conducted in the Cold War period. The conclusions of the advisory committee report support the reduction in radiation level exposure, the elimination of distinction between smokers and nonsmokers for lung cancer, and the inclusion of other radiogenic diseases. Based on the evidence in both the President's Advisory Committee and the BEIR-V Committee Reports, we have extended the number of eligible radiogenic pathologies by six to include: lung, brain, colon, ovary, bladder, and salivary gland cancers. In addition, specific non-cancer diseases, such as silicosis, have been incorporated. Adding these diseases, which have been documented by science as linked to radiation exposure, will more fairly compensate our fellow citizens who were exposed to this danger so long ago. With the inclusion of these modifications, miners, millers, and uranium ore transporters will be eligible in 11 western states to seek equitable compensation for their sacrifice in our nation's effort to produce our nuclear defense arsenal. I have worked with Senators Daschle, Campbell, and Bingaman in reviewing Atomic Energy Commission records to document the uranium/vanadium mines supported by the U.S. government during and after the Manhattan Project. Eleven western states were found to have mines dating from 1947 through 1970 from which the U.S. government purchased radioactive ore. Furthermore, uranium mills in these areas testify to the need to include millers who were exposed to radioactive decay without the benefit of state or government-instituted safety precautions. The report ``Raw Materials Activities of the Manhattan Project on the Colorado Plateau,'' by William Chenoweth, a noted geologist, documents the tragedies of exposure endured by miners, millers, and ore transporters as they extracted, prepared and moved the radioactive ore for use in the nuclear arsenal. These changes would enable an estimated 6,000 individuals harmed by exposure to uranium radiation to seek compensation. Of the thousands affected by radiation exposure, many of the downwinders, miners and millers were members of Indian tribes. Particularly noteworthy was the large number of U.S. atomic energy mines on Native American reservations. Many of these miners were not aware of the dangers that radiation exposure can cause, and the government did little to inform them of the risks. After RECA 1990 was passed into law, many complications have hindered members of Indian tribes from seeking their compensation. In working with the members of the Navajo Nation and other Native American tribes, we have developed legislation that largely addresses their concerns. The bill also instructs the Attorney General to take into account and make appropriate allowances for the laws, traditions, and customs of Indian tribes. Finally, my bill also contains a grant program designed to provide for the early detection, prevention and education on radiogenic diseases. These programs will screen for the early warning signs of cancer, provide medical referrals, educate individuals on radiogenic cancers as well as prevention, and facilitate documentation of RECA claims. These grants will be available to a wide range of health care providers including: cancer centers, hospitals, Veterans Affairs medical centers, community health centers, and state departments of health. Some may question the cost of our legislation. Let me set the record straight. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost close to $1 billion over the next 21 years. That averages out to just over $47 million a year. This estimate is significantly lower than other proposals that have been considered by Congress over the past several years. Ours is, I believe, a common sense approach that keeps to the intent of the original statute. But, Mr. President, in considering the cost, it is important to remember what prompted the original statute. What justified this compensation program in the first place? The answer is that the federal government during the early years of the atomic testing program, exposed American citizens--our neighbors--to deadly nuclear fallout. Knowing that there would be adverse effects of exposure to fallout, the government exploded these bombs so that the fallout would blow ``downwind'' of the more heavily populated cities. There was no warning or instruction about minimizing exposure for the citizens in these rural areas. In my view, Mr. President, this bill is only fair and just. If we fail to provide even basic compensation for the hardships they have endured, we will still be taking them for granted. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senators Daschle, Campbell, Bingaman, and Domenici in meeting our nation's commitment to the thousands of individuals who were victims of radiation exposure while supporting our country's national defense. I believe we have an obligation to care for those who were injured, especially since, at the time, they were not adequately warned about the potential health hazards involved with their work. Now is our chance to compensate these men and women for their injuries. I urge my colleagues to support these Americans by cosponsoring the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``National Fund for Health Research Act of 1999''. And I am particularly pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Specter. This bill is similar to legislation I introduced with Senator Specter in the 105th Congress, and with Senator Hatfield during the 104th Congress. The bill gained broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Our proposal would establish a National Fund for Health Research to provide additional resources for health research over and above those provided to the National Institutes of Health in the annual appropriations process. The Fund would greatly enhance the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures and cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that strike Americans. To finance the Fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1 percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the National Fund for Health Research. Each year under our proposal amounts within the National Fund for Health Research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for that fiscal year. The set aside would result in a significant annual budget increase for NIH. In 1994 I argued that any health care reform plan should include additional funding for health research. Systematic health care reform has been taken off the front burner but the need to increase our nation's commitment to health research has not diminished. While health care spending devours over $1 trillion annually our medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States devotes less than 3 percent of its total health care budget to health research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war against disease and disability continues. Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health costs in the long run. For example, the costs of Alzheimer's will more than triple in the coming century--adding further strains to Medicare as the baby boomers retire. We know that through research there is a real hope of a major breakthrough in this area. Simply delaying the onset of Alzheimer's by 5 years would save an estimated $50 billion. Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving patients' quality of life. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase funding for NIH through the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. But the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has put us on track to dramatically decrease discretionary spending, so that the nation's investment in health research through the NIH is likely to decline in real terms unless corrective legislative action is taken. The NIH is not able to fund even 30% of competing research projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. Science and cutting edge medical research are being put on hold. We may be giving up possible cures for diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's and countless other diseases. Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise of cure of treatment for millions of Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last month I had the honor of accompanying President Clinton and Education Secretary Richard Riley on a visit to Amos Hiatt Middle School in Des Moines, Iowa. We were joined by a high school teacher named Ruth Ann Gaines and an 8th grade student, Catherine Swoboda for a discussion on the need to modernize our nation's schools. Hiatt Middle School opened its doors in 1925 and students spend all but a few hours a week in classrooms built during a time when Americans could not imagine the technological advances that would occur by the end of the century. In 1925, Americans were flocking to movie theaters to see--and hear-- the first talking motion picture--Al Jolson's ``The Jazz Singer.'' The students who walked through the doors of the brand new Hiatt school that year could not imagine IMAX theaters with surround sound where a movie goer actually becomes a part of the film. In 1925, consumers were lining up in department stores to buy novelties like electric phonographs, dial telephones, and self-winding watches. CDS, DVD players, cellular telephones or palm pilots were unthinkable. And, the introduction of state-of-the art technologies like rural electrification and crop dusting were revolutionizing the lives of families and farmers alike. There have been incredible technological and scientific advances in the past seven decades. Yet, our schools have not kept pace with the times. We continue to educate our children in schools built and equipped in bygone eras. Mr. President, Iowa has a long and proud tradition when it comes to public education--a tradition which dates back to before statehood. As a result of the Land Ordinance of 1785, every township in the new Western Territory was required to set aside 640 acres of land for support of public education. Iowa's first elementary school was established in 1830 and the first high school in 1850. In 1858, the Iowa Free School Act laid the foundation for Iowa's public school system. By 1859 the state had 4,200 public schools--some in log cabins. This long commitment to education has brought great results. From 1870 on into this century, Iowa had the nation's highest literacy rate and the nation's highest test scores. Iowa students continue to do well but we must do better. Our public education system has served us well. But, the times have changed dramatically. The thousands of one-room school houses that dotted the countryside served us well for many generations. But time marches on and so must our schools. Just as the pot-belly stove gave way to central heat; candles gave way for electric lights; the blackboard and chalk must make way for the computer. We must make sure that every child and every school can facilitate the technology of the 21st century. However, Iowa State University reports that we need at least $4 billion over the next ten years to repair and upgrade school buildings and Iowa and make sure they can effectively utilize educational technology. Mr. President, the facts about the need to modernize and upgrade our nation's pubic school facilities are well known. The General Accounting Office estimates that 14 million American children attend classes in schools that are unsafe or inadequate and it will cost $112 billion to upgrade existing public schools to overall good condition. In addition, GAO reports that 46 percent of schools lack adequate electrical wiring to support the full-scale use of technology. Enrollment in elementary and secondary schools is at all time high and will continue to grow over the next 10 years making it necessary for the United States to build an additional 6,000 schools. The American Society of Civil Engineers reports that public schools are in worse condition that any other sector of our national infrastructure. I ask unanimous consent that a report card on the nation's infrastructure be inserted in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. To respond to this critical national problem, I am introducing the 21st Century School Modernization Act. I am pleased to have Senator Kennedy, Robb, Levin and Murray as cosponsors of this proposal. This legislation reauthorizes direct federal grants to local school districts for the repair, renovation of construction of public schools. These grants are critically important to districts in impoverished areas that may not benefit from the tax-oriented proposals. Secondly, the bill builds a new partnership with states by creating State Infrastructure Banks to provide subsidized loans for school modernization purposes. Finally, the bill provides grants to assist school districts in the planning and design of new facilities that will serve as the center of the community. The need to rebuild our nation's crumbling public schools is clear and I believe we must fight this battle on two critical fronts--this session's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and by enacting legislation to provide targeted tax relief. The 21st Century School Modernization Act complements tax-oriented plans, such as those proposed by President Clinton and Senators Daschle, Lautenberg and Robb, to provide school modernization tax credits to finance at least $25 billion in public school construction or renovation. Mr. President, if the nicest thing our kids ever see are shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most rundown place they see is their school, what signal are we sending them about the value we place on education and the future? Let me give your some firsthand testimony from Jonathan Kozol's book, Savage Inequalities. Kozol writes about a school in Washington, D.C.'s low-income Anacostia district: Tunisia, a fifth grader in Washington, D.C., tells Kozol: It's like this. The school is dirty. There isn't any playground. There's a hole in the wall behind the principal's desk. What we need to do is first rebuild the school. Build a playground. Plant a lot of flowers. Paint the classrooms. Fix the hole in the principal's office. Buy doors for the toilet stalls in the girl's bathroom. Make it a beautiful clean building. Make it pretty. Way it is, I feel ashamed. Tunisia tells the story better than any politician can. She faces it every day when the school bell rings. We can and we must do a better job for Tunisia and her peers. This is a serious national problem. And, it demands a comprehensive national response. The 21st Century School Modernization Act is a key part of that comprehensive national response and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999,'' known as RECAA 1999. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell; the distinguished Senate Minority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle; Senator Jeff Bingaman; and Senator Pete Domenici in introducing this legislation. These long awaited amendments will ensure that the United States government meets its responsibility to provide fair and compassionate compensation to the thousands of individuals adversely affected by the mining of uranium and from fallout during the testing of nuclear weapons in the early post-war years. These citizens helped our nation during the Cold War and we must not forget them. In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210) was enacted. RECA, which I was proud to sponsor, affirmed the responsibility of the federal government to compensate individuals who were harmed by the radioactive fallout from atomic testing, for which the government took few precautions to ensure safety. Additionally, workers who have suffered long-term health problems because they were not adequately informed of the dangers faced during uranium mining were eligible for compensation under the act. Administered through the Department of Justice, RECA has been responsible for compensating approximately 6,000 individuals for their injuries, but we can and should help a lot more. While the passage of the 1990 law was a momentous event, I have been carefully monitoring the implementation of the RECA program. I am disturbed over numerous reports from my Utah constituents concerning the burdensome process of filing claims with the Department of Justice. One complaint which I hear far too often is ``that it is easier to compensate a dead miner, than one living with disease.'' We cannot let this injustice continue. We have drafted the RECA Amendments of 1999 in response to these concerns. We should not add a bureaucratic nightmare to the burden of disease and ill-health already carried by these citizens. Moreover, excessive regulatory hurdles have made it too difficult for some deserving individuals to be fairly compensated under the Act. We must streamline and speed up the application process. In addition, advances in our medical knowledge compel us to modify the 1990 Act to define better criteria for compensation and to include diseases that we now know have radiogenic causes. Let me explain how this bill was developed. RECA originally defined a list of 13 compensable diseases based upon the 1988 Radiation Exposed Veterans Compensation Act and the findings of the 1980 report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR-III). In 1992, REVCA was amended based upon the findings of an updated BEIR- IV and -V Reports which defined a host of cancers that are considered for disability compensation due to radiation exposure. In addition, the report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, released in 1995, provides further scientific evidence for changes in the 1990 RECA law. The Committee reviewed 125 current studies and more than 200 public witnesses in evaluating the risks and diseases caused by exposure to radiation conducted in the Cold War period. The conclusions of the advisory committee report support the reduction in radiation level exposure, the elimination of distinction between smokers and nonsmokers for lung cancer, and the inclusion of other radiogenic diseases. Based on the evidence in both the President's Advisory Committee and the BEIR-V Committee Reports, we have extended the number of eligible radiogenic pathologies by six to include: lung, brain, colon, ovary, bladder, and salivary gland cancers. In addition, specific non-cancer diseases, such as silicosis, have been incorporated. Adding these diseases, which have been documented by science as linked to radiation exposure, will more fairly compensate our fellow citizens who were exposed to this danger so long ago. With the inclusion of these modifications, miners, millers, and uranium ore transporters will be eligible in 11 western states to seek equitable compensation for their sacrifice in our nation's effort to produce our nuclear defense arsenal. I have worked with Senators Daschle, Campbell, and Bingaman in reviewing Atomic Energy Commission records to document the uranium/vanadium mines supported by the U.S. government during and after the Manhattan Project. Eleven western states were found to have mines dating from 1947 through 1970 from which the U.S. government purchased radioactive ore. Furthermore, uranium mills in these areas testify to the need to include millers who were exposed to radioactive decay without the benefit of state or government-instituted safety precautions. The report ``Raw Materials Activities of the Manhattan Project on the Colorado Plateau,'' by William Chenoweth, a noted geologist, documents the tragedies of exposure endured by miners, millers, and ore transporters as they extracted, prepared and moved the radioactive ore for use in the nuclear arsenal. These changes would enable an estimated 6,000 individuals harmed by exposure to uranium radiation to seek compensation. Of the thousands affected by radiation exposure, many of the downwinders, miners and millers were members of Indian tribes. Particularly noteworthy was the large number of U.S. atomic energy mines on Native American reservations. Many of these miners were not aware of the dangers that radiation exposure can cause, and the government did little to inform them of the risks. After RECA 1990 was passed into law, many complications have hindered members of Indian tribes from seeking their compensation. In working with the members of the Navajo Nation and other Native American tribes, we have developed legislation that largely addresses their concerns. The bill also instructs the Attorney General to take into account and make appropriate allowances for the laws, traditions, and customs of Indian tribes. Finally, my bill also contains a grant program designed to provide for the early detection, prevention and education on radiogenic diseases. These programs will screen for the early warning signs of cancer, provide medical referrals, educate individuals on radiogenic cancers as well as prevention, and facilitate documentation of RECA claims. These grants will be available to a wide range of health care providers including: cancer centers, hospitals, Veterans Affairs medical centers, community health centers, and state departments of health. Some may question the cost of our legislation. Let me set the record straight. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost close to $1 billion over the next 21 years. That averages out to just over $47 million a year. This estimate is significantly lower than other proposals that have been considered by Congress over the past several years. Ours is, I believe, a common sense approach that keeps to the intent of the original statute. But, Mr. President, in considering the cost, it is important to remember what prompted the original statute. What justified this compensation program in the first place? The answer is that the federal government during the early years of the atomic testing program, exposed American citizens--our neighbors--to deadly nuclear fallout. Knowing that there would be adverse effects of exposure to fallout, the government exploded these bombs so that the fallout would blow ``downwind'' of the more heavily populated cities. There was no warning or instruction about minimizing exposure for the citizens in these rural areas. In my view, Mr. President, this bill is only fair and just. If we fail to provide even basic compensation for the hardships they have endured, we will still be taking them for granted. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senators Daschle, Campbell, Bingaman, and Domenici in meeting our nation's commitment to the thousands of individuals who were victims of radiation exposure while supporting our country's national defense. I believe we have an obligation to care for those who were injured, especially since, at the time, they were not adequately warned about the potential health hazards involved with their work. Now is our chance to compensate these men and women for their injuries. I urge my colleagues to support these Americans by cosponsoring the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will inform and empower consumers in the United States through a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without the use of abusive and exploitative child labor. I am joined in my efforts by Senators Hollings and Dorgan. I want to thank them for working with me on this important effort. This is the third time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. I'd like to ask my colleagues to take a moment to look around. Maybe it's the shirt you have on right now. Or the silk tie or blouse. Or the tennis shoes you wear on weekends. Chances are that you have purchased something--perhaps many things-- made with abusive and exploitative child labor. And chances are you were completely unaware that was the case. You will find a label that tells you what size it is, how to care for it and what it costs. But it doesn't tell you about the person who made it. Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization (ILO) released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over two hundred and fifty million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Now when I speak about child labor, I am not talking about 17 year- olds helping out on the family farm or running errands after school. I am speaking about children, often under 12 years old, who are forced to work long hours in hazardous and dangerous conditions many as slaves instead of going to school. On September 23, 1993, the Senate appropriately put itself on record as expressing its principled opposition to the abhorrent practice of exploiting children for commercial gain and asserting that it should be the policy of the United States to prohibit the importation of products made through the use of abusive and exploitative child labor by passing a Sense of the Senate Resolution I introduced. In my view, this was the first step toward ending child labor. Americans in Des Moines or Dallas or Detroit may say, ``What does this have to do with us?'' It is quite simple. By protecting the rights of workers everywhere, we will be protecting jobs and opportunities here at home. A U.S. worker cannot compete with a 12 year old working 12 hours a day for 12 cents. In 1998, the United States imported almost 50 percent of the wearing apparel sold in this country and the garment industry netted $34 billion. According to the Department of Commerce, last year, the United States imported 494.1 million pairs of athletic footwear and produced only 65.3 million here at home. As I have traveled around the country and spoken with people about the issue of abusive and exploitative child labor, I have found that consumers--ordinary Americans--want to get involved. They want information. They want to know if the products they are buying are made by children. According to a survey sponsored by Marymount University, more than three out of four Americans said they would avoid shopping at stores if they were aware that the good sold there were made by exploitative and abusive child labor. They also said that they would be willing to pay an extra $1 on a $20 garment if it were guaranteed to be made under legitimate circumstances. Mr. President it is obvious that consumers don't want to reward companies with their hard earned dollars by buying products made with abusive and exploitative child labor. This issue demands our attention. Our legislation, the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act 1999, will inform and empower consumers in the United States through a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without abusive and exploitative child labor. In my view, a system of voluntary labeling holds the best promise of giving consumers the information they want--and giving the companies that manufacture these products the recognition they deserve. The crux of this legislation is to provide the framework for members of the wearing apparel and sporting goods industry, labor organizations, consumer advocacy and human rights groups along with the Secretaries of Commerce, Treasury and Labor to establish the labeling standard and develop a system to assure compliance that items were not made with abusive and exploitative child labor. Thus, ensuring consumers that the garment or pair of tennis shoes they purchase was made without abusive and exploitative child labor. In my view, Congress can't do it alone through legislation. The Department of Labor can't do it alone through enforcement. It takes all of us from the private sector to labor and human rights groups to take responsibility, to come together to end abusive and exploitative child labor. And I am pleased to say there has recently been promising action to that end. Mr. President, when the private sector decides to take speak up--it certainly can make a difference. In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association has agreed to work with the International Labor Organization to take children out of the garment factories and put them into school--where they belong. As of May 1999, more than 353 schools for former child workers have opened, serving nearly 10,000 children. So, if we can do it in Bangladesh, then we can do it elsewhere. Mr. President, let me be clear, companies can choose to use the label or not to. This bill is not about big government telling the private sector what to do. This bill is centered around this fundamental principle: Let the Buyer Be Aware. This ``Truth in Labeling'' initiative is based on the principle that a fully informed American consumer will make the right, and moral, choice and vote against abusive and exploitative child labor with their pocketbook. We have seen such an approach work effectively with the Rugmark label for hand-knotted carpets from India. It is operating in some European countries. Consumers who want to buy child labor-free carpets can just look for the Rugmark label. I visited the Rugmark headquarters in New Delhi, India last year. Mr. President, this initiative is working. It has succeeded in taking children out of the factories and putting them into schools while providing consumers with the information they need. To date, 1.25 million of carpets have received the Rugmark label. Mr. President, the progress that has been made on eradicating abusive and exploitative child labor is irreversible. Therefore we must continue to more forward. And I believe my bill allows us to do just that. It allows the consumer to know more about the products they buy and give companies that use the label the recognition they deserve. Our nation began this century by working to end abusive and exploitative child labor in America, let us close this century by ending child labor around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1999. The bill I am introducing today prohibits the importation of any product made, whole or in part, by children under the age of 15 who are employed in manufacturing or mining. This is the fifth time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law. I would like to thank Senators Hollings, Dorgan, Levin, Mikulski and Kennedy for joining me in this important effort as original cosponsors of this legislation. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that over two hundred and fifty million children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay. Child labor is most prevalent in countries with high adult unemployment rates. According to the ILO, some 61 percent of child workers, nearly 153 million children, are found in Asia; 32 percent, or 80 million, are in Africa and 7 percent, or 175 million, live in Latin America. Adult unemployment rates in some nations runs over 20 percent. In Latin America, for example, about one in every ten children are workers. Furthermore, in many nations where child labor is prevalent, more money is spent and allocated for military expenditures than for education and health services. The situation is as deplorable as it is enormous. In many developing countries children represent a substantial part of the work force and can be found in such industries as rugs, toys, textiles, mining, and sports equipment manufacturing. For instance, it is estimated that 65% of the wearing apparel that Americans purchase is assembled or manufactured abroad, therefore, increasing the chance that these items were made by abusive and exploitative child labor. In the rug industry, Indian and Pakistan produce 95% of their rugs for export. Some of the worst abuses of child labor have been documented in these countries, including bonded and slave labor. Children may also be crippled physically by being forced to work too early in life. For example, a large-scale ILO survey in the Philippines found that more than 60 percent of working children were exposed to chemical and biological hazards, and that 40 percent experienced serious injuries or illnesses. These practices are often underground, but the ILO report points out that children are still being sold outright for a sum of money. Other times, landlords buy child workers from their tenants, or labor ``contractor'' pay rural families in advance in order to take their children away to work in carpet-weaving, glass manufacturing or prostitution. Child slavery of this type has long been reported in South Asia, South-East Asia and West Africa, despite vigorous official denial of its existence. Additionally, children are increasingly being bought and sold across national borders by organized networks. The ILO report states that at least five such international networks trafficking in children exist: from Latin America to Europe and the Middle East; from South and South- East Asia to northern Europe and the Middle East; a European regional market; an associated Arab regional market; and, a West Africa export market in girls. In Pakistan, the ILO reported in 1991 that an estimated half of the 50,000 children working as bonded labor in Pakistan's carpet-weaving industry will never reach the age of 12--victims of disease and malnutrition. I have press reports from India of children freed from virtual slavery in the carpet factories of northern India. Twelve-year-old Charitra Chowdhary recounted his story--he said, ``If we moved slowly we were beaten on our backs with a stick. We wanted to run away but the doors were always locked.'' Mr. President, that's what this bill is about, children, whose dreams and childhood are being sold for a pittance--to factor owners and in markets around the globe. It's about protecting children around the globe and their future. It's about eliminating a major form of child abuse in our world. It's about breaking the cycle of poverty by getting these kids out of factories and into schools. It's about raising the standard of living in the Third World so we can compete on the quality of goods instead of the misery and suffering of those who make them. It's about assisting Third World governments to enforce their laws by ending the role of the United States in providing a lucrative market for goods made by abusive and exploitative child labor and encouraging other nations to do the same. Mr. President, unless the economic exploitation of children is eliminated, the potential and creative capacity of future generations will forever be lost to the factory floor. Mr. President, the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1999 is intended to strengthen existing U.S. trade laws and help Third World countries enforce their child labor laws. The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of Labor to compile and maintain a list of foreign industries and their respective host countries that use child labor in the production of exports to the United States. Once the Secretary of Labor identifies a foreign industry, the Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to prohibit the importation of a product from an identified industry. The entry ban would not apply if a U.S. importer signs a certificate of origin affirming that they took reasonable steps to ensure that products imported from identified industries are not made by child labor. In addition, the President is urged to seek an agreement with other governments to secure an international ban on trade in the products of child labor. Further, any company or individual who would intentionally violate the law would face both civil and criminal penalties. This legislation is not about imposing our standards on the developing world. It's about preventing those manufacturers in the developing world who exploit child labor from imposing their standards on the United States. They are forewarned. If manufacturers and importers insist on investing in child labor, instead of investing in the future of children, I will work to assure that their products are barred from entering the United States. Mr. President, as I said when I first introduced this bill five years ago, it is time to end this human tragedy and our participation in it. It is time for greater government and corporate responsibility. No longer can officials in the Third World or U.S. importers turn a blind eye to the suffering and misery of the world's children. No longer do American consumers want to provide a market for goods produced by the sweat and toil of children. By providing a market for goods produced by child labor, U.S. importers have become part of the problem by perpetuating the impoverishment of poor families. Through this legislation, importers now have the opportunity to become part of the solution by ending this abominable practice. Mr. President, countries do not have to wait until poverty is eradicated or they are fully developed before eliminating the economic exploitation of children. In fact, the path to development is to eliminate child labor and increase expenditures on children such as primary education. In far too many countries, governments spend millions on military expenditures and fail to provide basic educational opportunities to its citizens. As a result, over 130 million children are not in primary school. In conclusion, Mr. President, this legislation places no undue burden on U.S. importers. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would willingly promote the exploitation of children. I know of no importer, company, or department store that would want their products and image tainted by having their products produced by child labor. And I know that no American consumer would knowingly purchase something made with abusive and exploitative child labor. These entities take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their goods; they should also be willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that their goods are not produced by child labor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am just looking, and it is hard to discern things sometimes in these bills. I am told by my staff the total amount of funds for livestock is reduced from $325 million to about $250 million. If I am wrong, correct me.

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I ask the Senator, there was, if I am not mistaken, in the Cochran amendment $300 million for specialty crops; is that right? I thought that was in the Cochran amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. He is chairman of the water quality subcommittee. That is what I am told.

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Crapo.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand that Senator Inhofe is the chairman of the air quality subcommittee. I understand--and I don't know this--that he is the chairman of the water quality subcommittee, which we are talking about, and Senator Crapo is in favor of this.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. We can work on that. The Senator may not be wrong on that. That may be closer to what we probably should be doing. There are other things in that disaster part I tell the Senator to look at. We did not completely fill the needs of last year's disaster. I think the Senator from North Dakota can talk about that. We had about $300 million in our bill just to meet the disaster needs of last year that were not fully paid for. So I ask you to look at that. You may be right on not anticipating or knowing exactly where the Mid- Atlantic States are right now. But there are other things we had in our disaster bill that we do know about and that do need to be addressed. Lastly, I want to say again, on the payments to oilseeds, which is in the Senator's bill, which is about $500 million, this really gets to the heart of whether we should have all AMTA payments or some mix of that and LDPs. Under AMTA payments, of course, you don't get any payments for soybeans. Under LDP, you do. Under the proposal we had, which our side offered yesterday, under LDP, we estimated there would be about $1 billion that would go to soybean producers for their losses this year. Under the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, there is $500 million in payments to all oilseeds, including soybeans. So we had not only $1 billion in the LDP, we had about $1 billion in purchases. So the $500 million is about a fourth of what we estimated the need would be for oilseeds. That is why I still hope we can reach some compromise on having a blend of AMTA payments and LDP payments, because I think LDP payments would more adequately respond to the needs of oilseeds than would a $500 million payment. Other than that, as I said, I think there is some good progress here, and I think there is some basis for reaching some kind of compromise agreement before the Sun sets today. I yield the floor.