Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask consent to set aside the pending amendment. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. I was under the understanding I was going to bring up my amendment, I would talk for 5 minutes, they would accept it, and that would be the end of it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, what is the parliamentary situation right now on the floor?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to set that amendment aside and call up an amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. About 6 minutes. I want to call it up first.

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to call up my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Biden, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Bryan. I thank the managers of the bill for their willingness to accept this. What this amendment would do is restore the funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program to the fiscal year 1999 level. In the bill before us, the Byrne grant was cut by $100 million from the fiscal year 1999 level; I might point out, on a bipartisan basis. This was cut first by the President. It was kept in as the bill came to the floor. I am grateful they accepted this amendment because these grants go directly to local and State law enforcement. For fiscal year 1999, $552 million was distributed to State and local law enforcement agencies through Byrne grants. But for fiscal year 2000, the Byrne grant was cut by the White House and by the initial actions before we got to the floor by more than 18 percent. This amendment would restore the fiscal year 1999 funding level for the Byrne program. The Byrne program is one of the most successful Federal anticrime programs ever. It pays for drug enforcement task forces, more cops on the streets, improved technology, and countless other valuable antidrug and anticrime efforts in local communities. Restoring the Byrne funds is a top priority of law enforcement groups who know the impact the program has had on crime and drugs. The National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of Police Chiefs have all contacted me, urging full funding of this program. I have received dozens of letters from Iowa police chiefs and sheriffs describing the kinds of setbacks they would suffer if these cuts go through. The Byrne grant provides critical staff and resources for Iowa's 24 drug enforcement task forces working to stem the methamphetamine epidemic in the region. Iowa and the Midwest have made great strides in reducing methamphetamine production and supply over the last few years. The proposed cuts to the Byrne program would only set them back in their uphill battle. Sgt. Tom Andrew, head of the Southeast Iowa Inter-Agency Drug Task Force that covers six rural counties, wrote me saying that his task force was made possible through the Byrne grant. Without it, most of the small agencies in that region would lack the manpower, funds, training, and technology necessary to combat the methamphetamine problem. Sergeant Andrew said: A funding cut of this magnitude would have a detrimental effect on our program and would, in all probability, result in the elimination of the task force. I have heard this story over and over again from my contacts in Iowa. These drug task forces are funded primarily by the Byrne grants, and they are desperately needed to fight our State's battles against methamphetamine use. I know this is the case in most States across the country. We just cannot afford to have an 18-percent cut in the Byrne grants in our States next year. It makes no sense to cut such a successful program that directly benefits our local communities. I thank the managers for accepting this amendment, and I trust we will keep the Byrne memorial grants at least at the same level next year as they were this year. Again, I thank my colleague from Kansas also for his strong support of this program. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. All right. I will be back.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about America's farmers and ranchers and the promise they hold for us and the future for our environment, for production of bountiful, safe, and nourishing food for us and for the population around the globe. Specifically on the issue of conservation, it became a national priority in the days of the Dust Bowl, leading to the creation in the 1930s of the Soil Conservation Service at the Department of Agriculture, which is now the Natural Resources Conservation Service. With the very foundation of our food supply at risk, the Government stepped forward with billions of dollars in assistance to help farmers preserve their precious soils. Since that time, Federal spending on conservation has steadily declined. Yet today agriculture faces a wide range of environmental challenges, from overgrazing and manure management to fertilizer runoff and water pollution. Urban and rural citizens alike are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of agriculture. Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the land, and there are farm-based solutions to these problems being implemented all over the country. But every dollar spent on constructing a filter strip or developing a nutrient management plan is a dollar that farmers don't have in hard times like these. And even in better times, there is a lot of competition for that dollar. So who benefits from conservation on farm lands? As much or more than the farmer, it is the rest of us, who depend on the careful stewardship of the water that travels across fields and pastures before reaching rivers, streams, and our groundwater. Farmers and ranchers tend not only to their crops and animals, but also to our public resources. Since we all share in these benefits, it is only right that we share in their costs. It is time to enter into a true conservation partnership with our farmers and ranchers to help ensure that conservation is not a luxury that comes and goes but an essential and permanent part of sustainable agricultural production nationwide. In the 1985 farm bill, we required that farmers who wanted to participate in USDA farm programs develop soil conservation plans for their highly erodible land. This provision helped put new conservation plans in place for our most fragile farmlands. In the most recent farm bill, we streamlined conservation programs and established new cost- share and incentive payments for certain practices. Today I am introducing the Conservation Security Act of 1999, proposed legislation that builds on our past successes and takes a bold step forward in farm and conservation policy. My bill would establish a universal and voluntary incentive payment program to support and encourage conservation activities by all farmers and ranchers. Under this program, farmers and ranchers could receive up to $50,000 per year in conservation payments. Under this conservation security program, farmers would enter into 3- to 5-year contracts with USDA and choose from one of three classes of conservation practices for which they would receive a payment based on the number of acres covered and the county rental rate for those acres. This program is directed toward conservation on working lands. It is not a set-aside. It is not an easement program. It is not a conservation reserve program. It is a conservation program so that we farm in the best way possible to conserve our resources and to prevent pollution. For implementing a basic set of practices, farmers would receive an annual payment of 10 percent of the rental rate of the land covered. I call this basic category class I, and it would include such practices as nutrient management, conservation tillage, and runoff and drainage control. There would be a class II under which farmers could receive up to 20 percent of the rental rate, where farmers would add to their class I practices by choosing from a menu of class II practices that would be established by the USDA--such things as nutrient management, composting, intensive grazing, partial field practices such as buffer strips and windbreaks, wetland restoration, and wildlife habitat enhancement. Then the third class, farmers who wanted to do class III conservation practices would enroll their whole farm under a total resource management plan that addresses all aspects of air, land, water, and wildlife. For that, the farmers would receive a 40-percent payment, 40 percent of the rental rate of land in that county. This bill also provides an incentive for livestock producers. In payment for preparing and adopting comprehensive manure management plans, producers raising under 1,000 animal units at any given time-- that would be 2,500 hogs, 1,000 beef cattle, 700 dairy cattle, 55,000 turkeys, or 100,000 chickens--they would be given a per animal incentive payment equal to 10 percent of the 5-year average market price. This program would not replace or otherwise affect any other conservation program, not at all, this is to add on, except that a farmer could not receive incentive payments under this program in addition to incentive payments under another program in addition to incentive payments for land already enrolled in a program such as the Conservation Reserve Program. In other words, you couldn't have your land in the Conservation Reserve Program and then enter this program with that same land. Again, I emphasize, the Conservation Security Program would be totally voluntary. It would be up to the farmer to decide if they want to do it. If they do, then they would get additional payments. A lot of these practices farmers are already doing now, for which they receive little or no support. Again, these practices don't just benefit the farmer; in fact, a lot of times it may burden the farmer. That farmer may have to do extra work, require a little extra time. Maybe some equipment for these kinds of conservation practices. The beneficiaries of this are all of us. We all will benefit from cleaner air, cleaner streams and rivers, protecting our groundwater, wildlife habitats for those of us who like to hunt and fish. Our private lands are a national resource, and conservation on farm and ranchlands provides environmental benefits that are just as important as the production of abundant and safe food. I am introducing the Conservation Security Act because I believe it will help secure both the economic future of our farmers, help them a little bit with the safety net, and it will be a cornerstone, I think, of our national farm policy and the environmental future of agriculture. I am introducing this bill for myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Conrad, and Senator Johnson. I ask other Senators who are interested to contact my staff. We are now actively seeking cosponsors for this new voluntary conservation program. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Agricultural appropriations. And that will come up before we leave in August?

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I tried to listen to all of the verbiage. I understand that Senator Daschle or his designee would be allowed to offer the emergency agriculture package without any rule XVI, but to what bill? To what measure would the Democratic leader be permitted to offer that?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I hope at least we can support this and provide our people freedom of choice.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from New Mexico. Together, we are cosponsoring this very important, vital amendment. Again, I will repeat some of what the Senator said. The most important thing I heard him say was, in the State of New Mexico, only 65 percent of the State has nurses that provide anesthesiology. I have a map of my State of Iowa. There are a lot of different colors on it, and I will not go into all the explanation, but the reality is, the vast majority of the State of Iowa only has certified nurse anesthetists to provide services to all of the State of Iowa. We have a few counties, about nine or 10, that have doctors, MDs. The rest are registered nurses. That is all. So someone up here in northwest Iowa or southwest Iowa, someplace up in this area, would have to drive hundreds of miles just to access an MD who is an anesthetist. Here is a letter from Preferred Community Choice PPO. I will not read the whole thing. It says: At this time, participation is limited to MD and DO degrees only. I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Bingaman and I offered an amendment to provide nondiscrimination, so the plans could not discriminate against providers on the basis of their license or certification. Now I see the Republicans have offered that amendment. I read through it. It is almost word for word the same as ours. Gee, here is an amendment I could vote for on the Republican side, until I read the fine print. What is the fine print? The fine print is this: Senator Bingaman, in our amendment, covers 161 million people; the Republicans' amendment covers only 48 million people. It is sort of like this. A doctor prescribes an antibiotic for you to take every day for 7 days. The Republicans come in and say you can only take it for 2 days. It is probably better than nothing, but it is not going to cure the illness. The Republican amendment on provider nondiscrimination is not going to cure the discrimination against chiropractors, against optometrists, against nurses and nurse practitioners, and physicians assistants. That is why I cannot support it.

Mr. HARKIN. That is what we are trying to get over with our amendment. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, this would cover such things as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, et cetera. This is not an ``any willing provider'' amendment. We are not saying that. We are not saying that we require a plan to open up to any provider who wants to join. We are simply saying a health plan cannot arbitrarily exclude a health care professional based on his or her license. That is all we are saying: They cannot do it based upon licensure. Second, this provision does not require health plans to provide any new benefits or services. It just says, if a particular benefit is covered and there is more than one type of provider that can provide a service under their State license or certification, the health plan cannot arbitrarily exclude this class of providers. For example, if a plan offers coverage for the treatment of back pain, it cannot exclude State-licensed chiropractors. Third, and I want to make this point very clearly, this provision would not expand or modify State scope-of-practice laws. Decisions about which providers can provide which services are left where they belong: to the States. Again, I just want to remind everyone, this Congress supported this concept when we passed provider nondiscrimination language as part of the Balanced Budget Act for Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Senator from Massachusetts made an inquiry. He said: How is this working? I can tell you, it is working great in my State for elderly people under Medicare because now a lot of elderly people, who live in sparsely populated areas of my State, can access, for example, for back pain, chiropractors. They can access nurse practitioners, physician's assistants, a whole host of different providers under Medicare who are licensed by the State of Iowa. That is what our amendment does. Again, I have to ask, if people in these programs, people in Medicare and Medicaid, have the right to choose their provider, should not all Americans? That is why this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. Thirty-eight States have recognized the need for this provision by passing similar legislation. Thirty-eight States have passed legislation providing that people can have their choice of providers as long as they are licensed or certified by the State. You might say, why would we do it here if 38 States already cover it? The problem is, the State laws do not apply to the 48 million Americans who are in self-funded ERISA plans. That is the problem. That is the loophole we are plugging. This provision is critically important for those who live in rural areas; those who do not have access to an MD or a DO; those who rely upon others who have State licensure or State certification to provide the kind of medical services they need. In our amendment, the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and me, we are basically saying we want to give people a little more power, to empower them a little more, and to provide freedom of choice for the American consumers. It is very simple. This provision says a managed care plan cannot arbitrarily exclude a health care professional on the basis of the license or the certification. It is a simple and straightforward amendment. It has broad-based support. I have a list of all the different associations supporting it. I would point out the broad-based support that it indeed does have, by everything from the American Academy of Physician's Assistants, nurse anesthetists, chiropractors, nurse midwives, the American Dental Association, American Nurses Association, Occupational Therapy Association of America, the American Optometric Association, the Physical Therapy Association, Speech, Language, and Hearing Association, and the Opticians Association of America. A broad range of providers support this provision.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are considering an amendment by Senator Bingaman to allow people with chronic illnesses, people with disabilities, to go outside the plan and get the specialty care they need; yet, again, not one Republican will get up and even talk about it. Not even one Republican will get up and talk about it.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Bingaman amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, I began speaking about it, the Senator from California spoke about it, Senator Reid spoke about it, but I have not heard one word on the other side about the Bingaman amendment that allows people to go outside their plan to get specialty care, as Senator Boxer just mentioned. Not one word from the Republican side about this amendment. What is it? Are they going to support it? Are they going to oppose it? What are they going to do? Not one single word about it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is an extremely important issue that Senator Bingaman has come up with. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment with him. I will just read the list of additional cosponsors: Senators Dodd, Murray, Reid of Nevada, Edwards, Boxer, Durbin, Graham of Florida, Kennedy, Daschle, Feingold, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Reed of Rhode Island. This is an important issue. I have worked, as Senators know, for a long time on issues dealing with disabilities, people with disabilities in this country. This is an extremely important issue for people with disabilities and people with long-term chronic health conditions such as cancer and others. The Bingaman amendment would ensure access to specialty care would be guaranteed to individuals in a group health plan so they have access to the specialty care they need. The inability to access specialists is the No. 1 reason people give for leaving HMOs. When I hear criticism of managed care from my constituents, it almost always involves some sort of problem with access to specialists. Senator Bingaman has articulated the differences in the bill. I want to review them again so people have a clear understanding of what the Bingaman amendment does. First, the amendment guarantees patients access to specialists who are qualified to treat their conditions. If the specialist in the plan's network cannot meet a patient's needs, this amendment allows the patient to see a specialist outside of the HMO's network at no additional cost. For example, there are several rare and deadly forms of cancer that strike children at an early age. Pediatric oncologists often have advanced skills and technical knowledge that general oncologists do not possess. We have to make sure the parents of these kids can gain access to such specialists, even if the plan they have doesn't have pediatric oncologists in its network. We have to ensure they can get these without additional cost. The Republican proposal fails to provide this basic protection. Secondly, our amendment allows a specialist to be the primary care coordinator for patients with disabilities or life-threatening or degenerative conditions. For example, imagine a woman with severe heart disease who also has diabetes and hepatitis. She recently had heart surgery and wants her cardiologist to coordinate her care. The Bingaman amendment would allow her to have her cardiologist as her primary care coordinator, who would then coordinate her care under a treatment plan in collaboration with her internist, endocrinologist, gastroenterologist, and the health plan. Again, the Republican proposal fails to provide this logical protection. According to their version of patients' rights, a patient with a serious illness could be required to entrust important decisions to a primary care doctor who has no knowledge of the specific disease the patient may have. If someone has a chronic or degenerative illness or disability, it is only logical to have a specialist who understands those special needs to coordinate the patient's care. The third element of this amendment provides for standing referrals for people who need ongoing specialty care, which enables them to go straight to the specialist instead of jumping through hoops time after time after time with primary care doctors or insurance companies. Here is a true story: A San Diego woman with paraplegia wanted a standing referral to a rehab specialist, but her HMO primary care physician refused that. After she developed a severe pressure wound, something a rehab doctor would have caught and treated, her primary care physician still refused a referral. Eventually this woman had to undergo surgery and spent a year on her back in the hospital with round-the-clock nursing care. Later the HMO's medical director was quoted as saying, managed care ``doesn't accurately meet the needs of the special patient.'' Again, the Republican proposal fails to provide this commonsense protection. According to the Republican's version of patients' rights, a patient receiving ongoing care from a specialist would have to go back and go back and go back to her or his primary care doctor whenever he or she needed to visit the particular specialist. From anyone's point of view, this does not make sense. By requiring a patient with an ongoing medical condition to continue to go back time and time again to a primary care doctor, every time they need to be treated by a specialist, inhibits the process of making the patient well. Some people say our amendment would create onerous new burdens on plans. In fact, many plans already allow specialists to be primary care coordinators, and they let people have standing referrals. In addition, the numerical estimates don't factor in the importance of Americans' trust in the health care industry. The patients' rights we are legislating on will build consumer trust in the health care industry and consumer satisfaction. I believe that is in the best interest of our entire health care system. Most importantly, when you step back and consider the policy of the Bingaman amendment, it is very simple: Insured Americans should get access to specialty care when and how they need it. They shouldn't be charged a single dime more than what they bargained for--nothing more and nothing less. A lot of organizations support this amendment, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, and the Patient Access Coalition. I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I will address the issue that was brought up by the Senator from Idaho who stated that women are going to be driven out of cancer care because of this legislation. I could not believe what I was hearing. I asked the Senator from Idaho to yield for a question, but he would not yield to me. Therefore, I will bring it up now. The Senator from Idaho stated that, because of this bill, thousands of people with breast cancer and lung cancer will be denied coverage. Why then, I ask, do the following organizations support our bill: The Alamo Breast Cancer Foundation, the Alliance for Lung Cancer, Advocacy Support and Education, the American Cancer Society supports this bill, the California Breast Cancer organization, Cancer Care, Inc., Minnesota Breast Cancer Coalition, National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, the North American Brain Tumor Coalition, the Rhode Island Breast Cancer Coalition, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the YME National Breast Cancer Organization-- on and on. Why do all these cancer organizations support our bill? If you listen to the Senator from Idaho, it is because they do not want anyone treated for cancer. How ridiculous. It just shows the ridiculous nature of the arguments made on the Republican side on this bill. What absolute, total nonsense. That brings me to another ridiculous assertion made earlier. Someone on the other side of the aisle stated that to have people in clinical trials is going to be very expensive. Sloan-Kettering did a study of the costs associated with clinical trials. They looked at a number of people over 3 years, and here is what they found: Hospital stays, 24 percent lower for clinical trials; radiation therapy, 25 percent lower cost; drugs and supplies, 25 percent lower cost; operating room, 8 percent lower cost. These are for clinical trials. That was backed up by another study done by M.D. Anderson in Houston, and this was done on 3,000 patients enrolled in clinical trials. They found costs for ovarian cancer patients were 35 percent less. They found lung cancer costs 36 percent less. In prostate cancer trials, there was a negligible difference between research and standard care patients.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff during the pendency of S. 1344: Ann Procter and Bryan Johnson.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I stand in support of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. S. 6, the Democratic leadership bill, is of immense importance to the American people. Some may ask, is such a bill necessary? Without question, it is. Currently, over 160 million of our family, friends, neighbors and children, are paying good money for health care with no guarantee of proper and appropriate treatment. We don't have to look too hard to see that there are too many cases where appropriate care is not being provided. We have all heard horror stories of individuals unable to see their doctor in a timely manner * * * of patients unable to access the specialist they need * * * of individuals unable to get coverage for the type of care they believed and expected was covered under their plan. It's very simple. Insurance either fulfills its promises or it doesn't. And we've heard enough to know that in too many cases it doesn't. Employers and patients pay good money for health care coverage, only to find that they're not getting the coverage they expected. In too many cases, the coverage they expected disappears when the need arises. I didn't have to look very hard to find such situations in my own state of Iowa. Let me tell you a story about Eric, from Cedar Falls, Iowa, who has health insurance through his employer. Eric is 28 years old, with a wife and two children. He suffered cardiac arrest while helping out at a wrestling clinic. He was rushed to the hospital, where he was resuscitated. Tragically, while in cardiac arrest, Eric's brain was deprived of oxygen. He fell into a coma and was placed on life support. The neurosurgeon on call recommended that Eric's parents get Eric into rehab. It was then the problems began. Although Eric's policy covered rehabilitation, his insurance company refused to cover his care at a facility that specialized in patients with brain injury. Thankfully, Eric's parents were able to find another rehab facility in Iowa. And Eric began to improve. His heart pump was removed, his respirator was removed, and his lungs are now working fine. But, even with this progress, Eric's family received a call from his insurance company saying they would no longer cover the cost of his rehab, because he is not progressing fast enough. Eric's mother wrote to me, saying, ``This is when we found out we had absolutely no recourse. They can deny any treatment and even cause death, and they are not responsible.'' This week, here on the Senate floor, we have a critical choice before us. A choice for Eric and his family. A choice between real or illusionary protections. A choice between ensuring care for millions of Americans or for perpetuating the already burgeoning profit margins of the Managed Care industry. The Republicans have offered a bill that leaves out 115 million people because most of the patient protections in the plan apply only to self-funded employer plans. This would protect only 48 million of the 161 million with private insurance. Our bill establishes a minimum level of patient protections by which managed care plans must abide. States can--and it's my hope that states will--provide even greater protections, as necessary, for the individuals in such plans in their states. As a starting point, however, we need to pass a strong and substantive managed care reform bill. The American people want real patient protections. Our bill, the real Patients' Bill of Rights Act, delivers on what Americans want and need, real protection against insurance company abuse. The bill provides basic protections for Americans, such as: Access to needed specialists, including access to pediatric specialists; the guarantee that a patient can see a doctor who is not on their HMO's list if the list does not include a provider qualified to treat their illness; access to the closest emergency room and coverage of needed emergency care; the guarantee that patients with ongoing serious conditions like cancer, arthritis, or heart disease can see their oncologist, rheumatologist, or cardiologist without asking permission from their HMO or primary care doctor each time; the guarantee that patients can continue to see their doctor through a course of treatment or a pregnancy, even if their HMO drops their doctor from its list or their employer changes HMOs; the guarantee that patients can get the prescription drug their doctor says they need, not an inferior substitute the HMO chooses because it's cheaper; access to quality clinical trials for those with no other hope; the ability to appeal an HMO's decision to deny or delay care to an independent entity and receive timely, binding decisions; and, finally, the right to hold HMOs accountable when their decisions to deny or delay care lead to injury or death. Most situations will be resolved through our appeals mechanism. However, I believe that HMOs and insurers should not have special immunity when they harm patients. No one can argue with the need to ensure access and quality of care for Americans. Over 200 organizations representing patients, consumers, doctors, nurses, women, children, people with disabilities, small businesses, and people of faith support the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights. The Majority pretends that their bill offers real patient protections, but when you read everything below the title, it reads more like an insurers' bill of rights. We have a chance to pass real and responsible legislation. The time for real reform is now. The American people have been in the waiting room for too long.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, genetic discrimination is a terribly important issue and one that I have been following for quite some time now. I am pleased to be here today with Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, and Senator Kenendy to introduce the ``Genetic Non-discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of 1999.'' The advances we have made recently in the study of the human gene are mind-boggling. The identification of a number of disease-related genes is providing scientists with important new tools for understanding the underlying mechanisms for many illnesses. Genomic technologies have the potential to lead to better diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately to the prevention and cure of many diseases and disabilities. Yet discrimination in health insurance and employment, and the fear of potential discrimination, threaten our ability to conduct the very research we need to understand, treat, and prevent genetic disease. Moreover, discrimination--and the fear of discrimination--threaten our ability to use new genetic technologies to improve human health. Let me give you just a few examples: In the early 1970's some insurance companies denied coverage and some employers denied jobs to African-Americans who were identified as carriers for sicklecell anemia, even though they were healthy and would never develop the disease. More recently, in a survey of people in families with genetic disorders, 22% indicated that they, or a member of their family, had been refused health insurance on the basis of their genetic information. And a number of researchers have been unable to get individuals to participate in cancer genetics research. Fear of discrimination is cited as the reason why. But this is more than just about numbers and anonymous individuals, it's about real people--including my own family. As many of you know, both my sisters died from breast cancer. And other members of my family might be at risk. Should I counsel them to get tested for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations? Should I counsel them to disclose our family history to their health care providers? Right now, I'm torn. I know that if my family is to have access to the best available interventions and preventive care, they should get tested, and they should disclose our family's medical history to their physicians. But, conversely, if they are to get any health care at all, they must have access to health insurance. Without strong protections against discrimination, access to health insurance is currently in question. In 1995, I introduced an amendment during the markup of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. My amendment clarified that group health plans could not establish eligibility, continuation, enrollment, or contribution requirements based on genetic information. My amendment became part of the manager's package that went to the floor, and it ultimately became law. HIPAA is a good first step. We should be proud of that legislation. Yet if our goal is to ensure that individuals have access to health insurance coverage and to employment opportunities--regardless of their genetic makeup--we must pass comprehensive anti-discrimination protections. Our proposed legislation offers such protections. Let me describe them in brief: First, this legislation prohibits insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. It is essential to prohibit discrimination both at work and in health insurance coverage. If we only prohibit discrimination in the insurance context, employers who are worried about future increased medical costs will simply not hire individuals who have a genetic predisposition to a particular disease. Second, under our proposal, health insurance companies are prohibited from disclosing genetic information to other insurance companies, industry-wide data banks, and employers. If we really want to prevent discrimination, we should not let genetic information get into the wrong hands. Finally, if protections against genetic discrimination are to have teeth, we must include strong penalties and remedies to deter employers and insurers from discriminating in the first place. In closing, let me say that this legislation will ensure that every American will enjoy the latest advances in scientific research and health care delivery, without fear of retribution on the basis of their sensitive genetic information. All of us should be concerned about this issue, because all of us have genetic information that could be used against us. As we move into the new millennium, everyone should enjoy the benefits of 21st century technologies--and not be harmed by 21st century discrimination. I applaud the committment of my fellow co-sponsors on this important issue and look forward to working with the rest of my colleagues to pass federal legislation that will prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace and in health insurance.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Thurmond and Hollings, I am submitting today a sense of the Senate resolution to right a wrong perpetrated against one of the greatest American baseball players of all time--Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson. In 1920 ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson was banned from the game of baseball, the game he loved. He was banned from Major League baseball for allegedly taking part in a conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series, in what has become known as the ``Black Sox'' scandal. While ``Shoeless Joe'' did admit that he received $5,000 from his roommate, Lefty Williams, to participate in the fix, evidence suggests that Jackson did everything in his power to stop the fix from going through. He twice tried to give the money back. He offered to sit out the World Series in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. And, he tried to inform White Sox owner Charles Comisky of the fix. All of these efforts fell on deaf ears. Perhaps the most convincing evidence of Jackson's withdrawal from the conspiracy was his performance on the field during the series. During the 1919 World Series--which he was accused of conspiring to fix-- ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's batting average was .375, the highest of any player from either team. He had 12 hits, a World Series record. He led his team in runs scored and runs batted in. And, he hit the only home run of the series. On defense, Jackson committed no errors and had no questionable plays in 30 chances. When criminal charges were brought against Jackson in trial, the jury found him ``not guilty.'' White Sox owner Charles Comiskey and several sportswriters testified that they saw no indication that Jackson did anything to indicate he was trying to throw the series. But, when the issue came before the newly-formed Major League Baseball Commissioner's office, Commissioner Judge Kenesaw ``Mountain'' Landis found Jackson guilty of taking part in the fix, and he was banned for life from playing baseball. The Commissioner's office never conducted an investigation and never heard a hearing, thus denying ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson due process. Major League Baseball now has an opportunity to correct a great injustice. I wrote recently to Commissioner Bud Selig urging him to take a new look at this case. I was very pleased when the Commissioner responded to my inquiry by saying he is giving the case a fair and objective review. Restoring ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's eligibility for the Hall of Fame would benefit Major League Baseball, baseball fans, and all Americans who appreciate a sense of fair play. ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson is an inspiration to people of all generations. Babe Ruth was said to have copied Jackson's swing. I was touched by Jackson's story through the movie ``Field of Dreams,'' which recounted his story. The movie was filmed in Dyersville, Iowa. Thousands of Iowans, young and old alike, have come to embrace ``Shoeless Joe.'' In fact, there is an annual Shoeless Joe Jackson celebration and celebrity baseball game in Dyersville. This year it will be attended by a cast of baseball greats, including Tommy Lasorda and Bob Feller. Jackson's career statistics and accomplishments throughout his thirteen years in professional baseball clearly earn him a place as one of baseball's all-time greats. His career batting average of .356 is the third highest of all time. In addition, Jackson was one of only seven Major League Baseball players to top the coveted mark of a .400 batting average for a season. The resolution we submit today states that Major League Baseball should honor Jackson's accomplishments appropriately. I believe Jackson should be inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. If that is to happen, Jackson must first be cleared for consideration by the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee, which will stand as the jury which decides whether Jackson's accomplishments during his playing career are worthy of recognition in the Hall of Fame. Mr. President, we are involved in many important issues. Clearly, this matter will not and should not take up the same amount of time this body devotes to critical issues like health care, education, or national defense. But, restoring the good name and reputation of a single American is important. This resolution gives us an opportunity to right an old wrong. It gives us an opportunity to honor one of the all-time great players of America's pastime, ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.