Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 20 minutes. Is that right?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to briefly speak on an amendment I offered today that was accepted by unanimous consent in the Defense authorization bill. My amendment will address an unfulfilled obligation to our nation's veterans. The problem is a substantial backlog of requests by veterans for replacement and issuance of military medals. At a time when our troops are engaged overseas, and with the Memorial Day weekend approaching, it is all the more important to ensure we are recognizing the sacrifices of our veterans. Believe it or not, it can take years for veterans to receive medals earned through their service to our nation. My state offices are involved in a number of current cases where veterans have been waiting two to three years for medals they earned, but were never awarded. While my staff and I pursue these cases aggressively, the reality is that no amount of pressure and follow-through can overcome what is essentially a resource problem. The medal issue revolves around a huge backlog of requests. The personnel centers, which process applications for the separate services for never-issued awards and replacement medals, have accumulated huge backlogs of requests by veterans. In one personnel center alone, 98,000 requests have been allowed to back up, resulting in years of waiting time. These time delays have denied veterans across the nation the medals and honors they have rightfully earned through heroic actions. Let me briefly share the story of Mr. Dale Holmes, a Korean War veteran. I have shared this story on the floor before, but I think it bears repeating. Mr. Holmes fired a mortar on the front lines of the Korean War. Stacy Groff, the daughter of Mr. Holmes, tried unsuccessfully for three years on her own, through the normal Department of Defense channels, to get the medals her father earned and deserved. Ms. Groff turned to me after her letter writing produced no results. My office began an inquiry in January of 1997 and we were not able to resolve this issue favorably until September 1997. Ms. Groff made a statement about the delays that sum up my sentiments perfectly: ``I don't think it's fair. My dad deserves, everybody deserves, better treatment than that.'' Ms. Groff could not be more correct. Our veterans deserve better from the country they served so courageously. DOD claims that it does not have the people or resources to speed up the process. But it would not take much to make a dent in the problem. For example, the Navy Liaison Office was averaging a relatively quick turnaround time of only four to five months when it had five personnel working cases. Now that it has only three people in the office, it is having a hard time keeping up with the crush of requests. DOD must make putting more resources towards this problem a priority. However, it seems like the same old story--our government forgets the sacrifices servicemen and women have made as soon as they leave military duty. We can do better. Last year, during the debate over the FY99 Defense Appropriations bill, the Senate passed my amendment urging the DOD to end the backlog of unfulfilled military medal requests. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not moved to fix the problem. In fact, according to my information, the problem has worsened. Therefore, here I am again. My amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to establish and carry out a plan to make available the funds and resources necessary to eliminate the backlog in decoration requests. Specifically, my amendment says the Secretary of Defense shall make available to the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Air Force Personnel Center, the National Archives and Records Administration, and any other relevant office or command, the resources necessary to solve the problem. These resources could be in the form of increased personnel, equipment or whatever these offices need for this problem. My amendment also directs that funding and resources should not come at the expense of other personnel service and support activities within DOD. It is a commonsense approach which will allow DOD to structure a quick and direct solution to the problem. Our veterans are not asking for much. Their brave actions in time of war deserve our highest respect, recognition, and admiration. My amendment will help expedite the recognition they so richly deserve. Our veterans deserve nothing less. I thank the Veterans of Foreign Wars for strongly supporting this amendment. Their support meant a great deal to my efforts. I thank the managers of the Defense Authorization bill, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, for their cooperation and understanding in agreeing to accept this important amendment. While this is only a small change to the Defense authorization bill, it will send a clear message to our Nation's veterans and active duty personnel: we recognize and value the sacrifices you have made on our behalf. Amendment No. 394

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. I ask, where is the sense in doing this? Again, I am not going to say we should not make some changes in the Civil Air Patrol. I believe some changes are warranted. I have been involved in this a long time. I am not going to say I have all the knowledge on exactly how to do it, but I believe we ought to bring the Air Force and Civil Air Patrol together and hammer this thing out. We need hearings, a GAO investigation, an IG investigation, and then let's do it in a logical manner, in a manner which really is going to keep the civilian nature of the Civil Air Patrol and even make it better than it is today. I believe that can be done. That is why I am so strongly supportive of the Allard amendment. I think it takes that kind of a commonsense, logical approach to improve and make the Civil Air Patrol even better in the next century. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I have 4 or 5 minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. I think maybe we are going to reach a good resolution on this and accept the amendment. I have no problems with a voice vote. That is fine. I know the Senator from Oklahoma is sincere. We have talked about this. He has been involved in the Civil Air Patrol for a long time. I believe we can work this out. Again, I hope we can do it in a logical approach. I have to chide my friend from Oklahoma a little bit here on reading a letter on the web. I say to my friend that I know there are probably disgruntled people in the CAP, like in the Air Force or anywhere else. We are going to get those kinds of letters. Again, I just repeat for the sake of emphasis that the best way to do that is to get the IG to look into the darned thing and see what type of basis there is on that. I just want to add in my little time remaining that I really want to examine, perhaps, this oversight board. The Air Force wanted to have a military oversight board. I personally don't think that is the way to go. For the Civil Air Patrol, I agree, the present structure of the board is not right. I want to say that publicly to my friend from Oklahoma. That is not right. But I hope to work with him in thinking about an oversight board that would be more akin to the civilian oversight board of the academies or something like that, or maybe Congress would appoint some and the President would appoint some where we would have a blend of civilians with the background that would give them the kind of knowledge they need to have an oversight of the Civil Air Patrol. I hope that might be a better way of proceeding on an oversight board to keep it in civilian hands, but to do it in the way that is not the present structure of how the board is set up, which I, quite frankly, think invites a lot of problems, the way the board is set up with the commander. I am willing to work on that. I think we can work that out, but to have some kind of a civilian oversight board. Again, I appreciate the debate we have had. I think we all are very justly proud of the Civil Air Patrol and what they have done in the past. I really believe that in the future, with drug interdiction, with national disasters, the Civil Air Patrol will continue to play a vital role in our society. Plus, I also want to work with my friend from Oklahoma and my friend from Colorado. I have been trying for a long time to beef up the cadet program in the Civil Air Patrol. We need to strengthen the cadet program. These inner-city kids especially are looking for things to do. They need some order. They need some structure and discipline in their lives. This is what the Civil Air Patrol can do for them. It will help build up our summer camps where these kids get to go for a couple of weeks. They can learn some technology and get some discipline and order in their lives. They can wear a uniform of which they can be proud. Believe me. I think we ought to do more to strengthen and to build up the cadet program in the Civil Air Patrol. I think it would be one of the best things we could do for the future of our country. Again, I appreciate all the work that Senator Allard has done on this. I have talked to so many Democrats on my side who are supporting the Allard amendment. I believe there is overwhelming support on both sides for this approach. Again, if we want to have a voice vote on it, that is fine with me. I thank my colleague from Colorado. I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I think he has done a service here by at least highlighting the problem and pointing out that we have to do something. We may have disagreed a little bit on how to do it, but that is normal. I think now we are set on a course that is really going to improve and make the Civil Air Patrol even better. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the Civil Air Patrol, a unique group of volunteer civilian airmen and others, who support this nation in a variety of ways. CAP members represent a cross-section of America and include pilots, emergency medical technicians, and teachers who use their professional skills to provide emergency services, youth programs, and aerospace education. Its more than 60,000 senior and cadet members are located in small towns and large cities across this country. Day in and day out, its aircrews fly search and rescue, disaster relief, counter-drug and Air Force operational support missions while teachers and others run a youth program for thousands of cadets and support aerospace education programs in hundreds of schools. CAP began its service to the nation under very unusual circumstances. As World War II approached, civilian pilots began to look for ways to help with the expected war effort. They organized together as an air arm of the Office of Civil Defense and, in the first months of the war, they were quick to respond as ships were torpedoed within sight of land. During a period when we lacked the Army and Navy aircraft needed to patrol thousands of square miles off our coasts looking for German submarines, the CAP was there. Flying their own aircraft, sometimes using automobile inner tubes for life preservers, CAP pilots did what the military could not, find enemy submarines in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They spotted so many submarines, in fact, that they finally convinced the military that they should be armed. At first they simply carried the bombs on their laps and dropped them out the door of the aircraft, later they improvised homemade bomb aiming sights and put bomb racks under their Beech, Fairchild, Sikorsky, and Stinson aircraft. It was over a year and a half before the military could accomplish this mission without CAP's help. By July of 1943, CAP pilots had flown over 24 million miles on anti- submarine combat missions and had spotted and reported the location of 173 submarines to the military. CAP itself attacked 57 of those submarines and sank or damaged two. Hundreds of survivors from sunk ships and military aircraft crashes (at sea) were rescued as part of CAP's anti-submarine patrol efforts. Twenty-six CAP volunteer lives and 90 aircraft were lost on these civilian-flown combat missions. CAP's World War II service also set the foundation for its modern day service to America. During the war, CAP became a part of the Army Air Force and flew hundreds of thousands of hours nationwide on border patrol, search and rescue, forest fire watch, target-towing, courier flights, and military training exercises. It began its cadet program to help the military recruit young Americans and to teach them about aviation. These were invaluable missions that contributed greatly to the war effort. Many of the same missions and the tradition of service established then, continues today. Today, CAP again flies support missions off the coast of America in support of another kind of war, the war against drugs. Since 1985, CAP has flown hundreds of thousands of hours in support of the U.S. Customs, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and other federal and local law enforcement agencies. CAP aircrews fly reconnaissance, communications relay, and transport missions which take place over water along the 12- mile territorial limit, along the nation's borders, and in most of the 50 states. The cost to the taxpayer is very little as CAP aircraft are flown by volunteer aircrews for about $55 a hour. Aircrew members donate their time, often using their own personal leave from work to fly these missions. They provide essential support to the government, which would cost the taxpayer, even if the government had the pilots and aircraft to use, up to $2,000 an hour. In 1998 alone, Civil Air Patrol flew 41,721 hours in support of counter-drug efforts. CAP also flies and conducts more traditional missions. While it is the official auxiliary of the Air Force, it also performs numerous emergency services missions, youth programs and aerospace education programs in support of states and local communities across this nation. It's pilots routinely fly about 85 percent of all the search and rescue hours flown in the United States. Whether searching for a lost child in a state park or looking for downed military aviator, Civil Air Patrol is there. In 1998, Civil Air Patrol conducted 3,155 search and rescue missions and saved 116 lives. CAP also supports local communities and states during time of disaster. In 1998, during a period lasting weeks, hundreds of CAP members in drought-stricken Florida and Texas flew emergency fire watch while others maintained airborne communications relay stations, around the clock, supporting fire fighters on the ground. As recently as three weeks ago, when the Oklahoma tornadoes killed 45, CAP aerial and ground units quickly joined with community and state disaster relief efforts. Other emergency and humanitarian missions include flood surveillance, tornado and hurricane reconnaissance, blood collection and distribution flights, and the emergency airlift of medical material. Over 26,000 young people participate in CAP's growing cadet program where they not only have opportunities to fly, but they too learn discipline, leadership and public service skills. Not only are many of these cadets model citizens but they help their communities and states during times of emergency. Indeed, during CAP's emergency operations cadets operate many of its radios and make up the bulk of its ground rescue units. The cadet program also includes local unit activities, physical fitness, leadership laboratories, aerospace education, and moral leadership. A wide range of annual special cadet activities include nationwide flight encampments where cadets each summer, working with adult flight instructors, learn how to fly powered aircraft and gliders. In 1998, 180 young men and women learned how to fly at these encampments. CAP also conducts nearly 200 aerospace education workshops that reach over 5,000 educators annually and routinely provides Air Force ROTC and CAP cadets in a series of orientation flights--over 17,500 in 1998--to introduce them to modern aviation. It is impossible to adequately capture the essence of the Civil Air Patrol in just a few short words, however, I hope it is clear that the CAP is a unique organization that touches Americans at all levels. While it is the official auxiliary of the Air Force, it is also a benevolent, civilian non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to support emergency service and educational organizations such as the American Red Cross, all fifty states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as well as thousands of local communities across the nation. Its more than 50,000 members, 1,700 squadrons, 535 light aircraft and thousands of communications stations stand ready to support not only the Air Force and other Federal agencies but all the citizens of the United States, no matter where they live. Civil Air Patrol does this valuable humanitarian and public service mission 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with little or no fan fare. Its volunteers deserve our thanks and appreciation. Air Force Proposal I rise in support of the Allard amendment to ensure civilian leadership of the Civil Air Patrol and to require studies of proposals to improve its operations. The Air Force has proposed a take-over the governance of CAP. The Defense Authorization bill includes this proposal. It is not warranted, nor will it necessarily address alleged problem with CAP. I am joining with Senator Allard and a long, bipartisan list of cosponsors to offer an alternative that has Congress make a more considered decision. The Air Force has proposed some huge and abrupt changes to the operations and governance of the Civil Air Patrol. The Air Force wants to place themselves in control of the CAP Board and operations. The proposal would put an Air Force Reserve Major General in charge of Headquarters, place an oversight Board--appointed by the Air Force--in control of CAP and replace a lot of the civilian staff with Air Force uniformed staff. This represents a major change to the CAP. It represents a higher financial cost to the taxpayer. It also represents placing a civilian volunteer nonprofit organization under the control of the Air Force. Strangely, the Armed Services Committee has adopted the Air Force proposal. I say strangely, because the Committee adopted the language with very little review or discussion. There has been no hearings on the Air Force proposal. The Air Force is citing allegations of financial mismanagement and safety lapses as the reasons for the change. While the Air Force has told the press there are series problems with CAP, they have yet to make clear the evidence to support the allegations. There has been no report by the Air Force Inspector General, no report by the DOD IG, nor by the GAO. The Air Force did write a report a year ago arguing for an adoption of a new financial management process--the adoption of an OMB circular--but CAP is waiting for the OMB to review the plan. The Civil Air Patrol leadership has rejected the allegations. We don't need to rush to a hasty decision. In fact, I have talked to both Acting Secretary Peters of the Air Force and CAP leadership. Both want to get together upon my behest to discuss any differences and think through any proposals. I would like to invite other Senators to attend if they so desire. The Senator from Oklahoma described many allegations of CAP missteps. All I heard were allegations. In fact, many were made by unnamed former members. Where is the evidence? Where is the formal review? Where are the hearings? Are we going to base legislation on unchecked allegations? Let me address just one allegation made by the Air Force and repeated by the Senator from Oklahoma--the infamous CAP cruise, which has been purported as the worst of CAP's missteps. I have looked into the matter and here is what I have found. It is true that, in 1998 the southeast region had a meeting aboard a ship instead of at a hotel. CAP regions have meetings regularly with the region wings deciding on the location. Let's look at a few more facts. First, no CAP member used federal dollars to pay for the cruise. None. That's right, the volunteer members of CAP all pay their own way out of their own pockets. It is true that some CAP headquarters staff attended that meeting and were reimbursed for the cost. This has long been the normal practice for staff--who are paid federal employees, not members--to get reimbursed. This is the normal federal practice as far as travel expenses relating to work. The Air Force had no criticism of the staff attendance, but said that staff members received unauthorized reimbursement. But here is the key point: the reimbursement was approved by the Air Force before the event. The Air Force has about thirty Air Force staff overseeing operations and financial matters at headquarters, at the CAP headquarters in Alabama. Before the event, these Air Force staff, at the headquarters, approved the event for reimbursement. In other words, the Air Force already had authority to oversee CAP financial matters, exercised the authority and approved the reimbursement. Where is the lack of Air Force control? The Air Force has also pointed to safety concerns. Although we only have allegations, I talked to the CAP Commander, Jay Bobich about them. I asked if there is a need for a safety officer. His response was fairly open. He doesn't know about the incident cited--again, they are from letters from unknown sources--but would welcome an Air Force safety officer. The Air Force can place one at the headquarters without this legislation and always could, but perhaps the Air Force did not think it was a serious concern. Let me also turn to an important down-side to the Air Force proposal: cost. The Air Force proposes to use many more uniformed military personnel to run CAP headquarters, replacing the civilian employees. I don't have to point out the financial implication to my colleagues. Uniformed Air Force personnel simply cost more. In fact, the Air Force is even talking about placing a 2-star general instead of the current civilian director. This alone is a $60,000 difference that the taxpayers would have to bear. Rather than simply take the Air Force proposal, we should require the DOD Inspector General to do a study of the allegations. I have already started the GAO on a study. We should also require an Inspector General study. This way, we in Congress, can make an informed decision that considers all possible alternatives. I must pose a question to my colleagues. Why would anyone make a lasting decision to make major changes to an important organization using unilateral input--in this case from the Air Force? Right or wrong, would it not be better to have an unbiased and factual determination, and then make a judgment based on the facts? Our amendment simply requires that we take some time to look at the Air Force proposal on CAP, examine other potentially better proposals, and have the IG and GAO make recommendations. Let's not rush to a hasty judgment without the facts. Mr. President, I want to give my disclaimer and talk about my own involvement in the Civil Air Patrol. I have been involved in the Civil Air Patrol for about the last 15 years. I am at present the commander of the Congressional Civil Air Patrol Squadron. I go out and fly missions. I fly with the Civil Air Patrol quite regularly. So I just wanted to lay it out that I am very much involved with the Civil Air Patrol and have been involved most of the time I have been in the Senate. It is a proud and good organization. I am just going to give a little bit of the background: More than 60,000 senior and cadet members, all across America, in small towns, large cities, flying every day in search and rescue missions. Almost 85 percent of all the search and rescue missions in America are done by the Civil Air Patrol. We have youth programs for thousands of cadets around America. This organization started in World War II when German submarines were sinking our ships off the coast, sometimes within sight of land. We didn't have the Army and Navy aircraft to patrol, so, flying their own small aircraft, sometimes using automobile inner tubes as their life preservers, the CAP pilots did what the military could not--they found the enemy submarines in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They spotted so many submarines. In fact, they finally convinced the military they should be armed. At first they actually carried bombs on their laps in the plane. They would see a submarine, and they would throw them out the window on top of the submarine, on top of the German U-boat. By July of 1943, CAP pilots had flown over 24 million miles on antisubmarine combat missions. They had spotted and reported the location of 173 submarines to the military and the CAP itself attacked 57 of those submarines and sank or damaged two of them. I wanted to lay that out as a kind of proud history of the Civil Air Patrol. Since that time, under civilian control, the Patrol has had a great cadet program to recruit young people into its program. Many of the pilots we have had in the Air Force, the Navy, came out of the Civil Air Patrol. It is just an invaluable youth program. One time I came over here to talk to a youth group from the Cleveland, OH, Civil Air Patrol squadron, all young African Americans, male and female, taken out of the inner city. They had uniforms. They were given discipline. They had summer programs. It was just a wonderful thing to see, this cadet program instilling good American values in these young people. Again, I point that out as a way of saying that this is a very proud, very good organization, one that has done a lot of good. As I said, 85 percent of all search and rescue is done by the Civil Air Patrol. In 1998, we conducted 3,155 search and rescue missions and saved 116 lives. We also support communities and States in times of disaster. In 1998, during a period lasting weeks, when we saw all the fires in Florida and Texas, hundreds of CAP members flew emergency fire watch, while others maintained airborne communication relay stations. Three weeks ago during the terrible Oklahoma tornadoes that killed 45 people, CAP was there with aerial and ground units and quickly joined with community and State disaster relief efforts. I can tell you that in 1993, during the terrible floods we had in the Midwest, in Iowa, the Civil Air Patrol was there day after day after day helping with logistics, helping with communication, helping fly aircraft over rivers to warn of propane tanks floating downstream. All of these things are done by volunteers. The people flying these planes don't get paid a dime. One other thing that most people don't know about is the drug interdiction efforts by the Civil Air Patrol. This was something that I had a proud involvement with back in the 1980s. We changed the law to give the Civil Air Patrol the authority to join with the DEA and others to fly drug interdiction, both off our coasts and looking for drugs within the continental United States. At that time, if I am not mistaken, much of what was being done in that regard was done by the National Guard. They were charging over $1,100 an hour for that. The Civil Air Patrol did it for about $80 an hour. Why? Because it was all volunteers. In fact, many of the flying volunteers took their own cameras with them, paid for their own film, paid for developing, which pictures they then turned over to the DEA. Again, I point that out because I am very proud of the Civil Air Patrol, very proud of their history, proud of what they have been doing recently, proud of what they are doing yet today to help our States, our local communities, and the great cadet programs they have to instill good values and discipline among so many young people in America. Now what do we have? In front of us we have this provision that was put into the bill. I understand it was voice voted in committee. We have had no hearings on it, not one hearing. Yet, this provision would basically allow the Air Force to completely take over the Civil Air Patrol. The Air Force has always had a relationship with the Civil Air Patrol--quite frankly, a pretty decent relationship. But because of some unfounded allegations, all of a sudden we have this provision in the bill that basically would allow the Air Force to take it over. Well, what the Allard and Harkin amendment--joined by so many others--says is, what we have are allegations. When you have allegations, the best thing to do is to have the GAO investigate and do a study, have the inspector general's office investigate these allegations. Let's find out where the truth lies. That is what our amendment says. The world is not going to end in the next year if we do not make this massive change to let the Air Force take over the Civil Air Patrol. What we need to do is to approach it in a logical manner. That is what the Allard-Harkin amendment does. It simply says, GAO, IG, do an investigation, report back by February 15 of the year 2000, next year, in time for the next cycle. I am also going to ask the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee if they would have hearings on this, bring in the Air Force, bring in the Civil Air Patrol. Let's find out if there are any bases to these allegations. I called the present commanding officer of the Civil Air Patrol, Jay Bobick, last night. I talked to him about some of the allegations that were made on the record by my friend from Oklahoma. Quite frankly, I got a completely different story. There have been allegations of financial mismanagement and safety lapses, but there is no evidence to support it. There has been no report by the Air Force inspector general, no report by DOD, nor by GAO. The Civil Air Patrol leadership rejects these allegations. We don't need to rush to a hasty decision. I talked personally to both the Acting Secretary of the Air Force and to the CAP leadership. I asked them if we could get them both together in the same room, across the table from each other, and talk to one another. I said I would be there. Senator Allard would be there. Anybody else is invited to come, too. Let's get these two entities together, and let's talk it out, just see what is the basis of this problem. I think that is the proper way to proceed. The Senator from Oklahoma described many of the allegations of CAP missteps. Some were made, as I understand, in the record by unnamed former members. Again I ask, where is the evidence? Where is the formal review? Where are the hearings? Are we going to base this legislation on unchecked allegations by unnamed former members? I must say at the outset, I know of some former members of the Civil Air Patrol who are still upset because they were run out because they were mismanaging things. Now they are coming back, writing letters, and doing things like that. Well, OK, if they want to do that, that is fine. But let's check into it. We heard last night about the infamous CAP cruise, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, a CAP cruise to wherever it was, the Bahamas or Nassau, some place like that, purported as one of the worse CAP missteps, I looked into the matter, and here is what I found. It is true that in 1998 the southeast region--that is basically Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee; I may have missed a couple States--had a meeting. They had it aboard a ship instead of at a hotel. I point out the Civil Air Patrol regions have meetings regularly within the region and all the wings come together and they decide on the location. They decided on having it on a ship. Let's look at the facts. First, no Civil Air Patrol member used Federal dollars to pay for that cruise, not one. They paid for it out of their own pockets, volunteer members. It is true that some of the Civil Air Patrol headquarters staff at Maxwell Air Force Base attended the meeting. They were reimbursed for the cost. But this has long been the normal practice. They are paid Federal employees. They are not volunteer members. When they go to meetings like this, they get reimbursed. Now, we were told they were reimbursed. They got the meals free on the ship, but they then got reimbursed for that. This, I was told, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, is not so. What they got reimbursed for was breakfast and lunch on the way to the ship, and they got reimbursed for breakfast and lunch or lunch and dinner on the way back, which is normal, accepted Federal practice. They were not reimbursed for any of the meals while they were on the ship. Anyway, that is what I have been told. I point this out, also, to my friend from Oklahoma: The Air Force had no criticism of this. In fact, another key point: The Air Force has about 30 staff overseeing operations and financial matters at headquarters at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Before this cruise took place, the southeast region sent it up to the Air Force for approval. Guess what. The Air Force approved the cruise before it ever took place. That is true. The reimbursement and the cruise were approved by the Air Force before it ever took place. In other words, the Air Force already had the authority to oversee Civil Air Patrol financial matters. They exercised that authority and they approved it. So I ask, where is the lack of Air Force control? They had it. And now we have allegations that they took this cruise, but the Air Force approved it in the first place. Well, now I hear there are some safety concerns. Again, we only have allegations. I talked to Mr. Bobick about them. I asked if there is a need for a safety officer, an Air Force safety officer. I say to my friend from Oklahoma that his response was fairly open. He didn't know about the incident cited. Again, these are letters from unknown sources, unsubstantiated. But he said they would welcome an Air Force safety officer. He pointed this out, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. The Air Force can place a safety officer at the headquarters without this legislation. They always could. They could tomorrow. Why haven't they? Perhaps the Air Force didn't think it was a very serious matter. Yes, I want to point out that the Air Force could--today, if they want--place a safety officer at headquarters in Alabama. They have never done so. I am not saying they should not, but I am saying let's get some studies down here and have some hearings on this before we run off and do something without even knowing what the facts are. I want to make just one other observation. Prior to 1995, we had some 170-plus--I will leave myself a little room--Air Force personnel at Maxwell running the Civil Air Patrol. The Air Force, as I have stated, didn't want to do any more. We replaced them with civilians over a period of time. We replaced 170-some Air Force personnel--they drew them down--with I think about 104 civilians. They pay less and we are actually saving the taxpayers money. Now, I understand the Air Force is talking about placing a two-star general as the executive director of the Civil Air Patrol instead of the civilian we have there now. I asked for a cost estimate on that. It would cost about $60,000 more per year to do that.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to assist rural America, the Rural Telecommunications Improvement Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by our distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, as well as Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Conrad, Wellstone, Johnson, Wyden, Reid, Kerrey, Rockefeller and Murray. I would like to thank each of them for joining me in this effort to promote the interests of rural America within the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our legislation will establish an Office of Rural Advocacy within the FCC to promote access to advanced telecommunications in rural areas. The Rural Advocate will be responsible for focusing the Commission's attention on the importance of rural areas to the future of American prosperity, as well as on ensuring that Universal Service provisions mandated by the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act are being met and implemented. Our proposal is modeled on the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, which has been very successful in promoting the interests of small business within the U.S. government. Under our bill, the Office of Rural Advocacy will have 9 chief responsibilities: To promote access to advanced telecommunications service for populations in the rural United States; To develop proposals to better fulfill the commitment of the Federal Government to universal service and access to advanced telecommunications services in rural areas; To assess the effectiveness of existing Federal programs for providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; To measure the costs and other effects of Federal regulations on telecommunication carriers in rural areas; To determine the effect of Federal tax laws on providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; To serve as a focal point for the receipt of complaints, criticisms and suggestions concerning policies and activities of any department or agency of the Federal Government which affect the receipt of telecommunications services in rural areas; To counsel providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; To represent the views and interests of rural populations and providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; and To enlist the cooperation and assistance of public and private agencies, businesses, and other organizations in providing information about the telecommunications programs and services of the Federal Government which benefit rural areas and telecommunications companies. Mr. President, such an office within the FCC is needed for one very important reason, no bureau or Commissioner at the FCC has as an institutional role with the responsibility to promote the interests of rural telecommunications. The FCC has a great number of issues to consider due to the ever changing role of communications. Our legislation will ensure the FCC has the resources necessary to focus the Commission's attention on rural issues and will help establish an agenda at the FCC to address rural America's telecommunications needs, something the Commission has not done in the recent past. For example, the FCC's report on Advanced Telecommunications Services stated ``deployment of advanced telecommunications generally appear, at present, reasonable and timely.'' I can tell you Mr. President, this is not the case in Iowa where, according to the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), approximately 8% of our exchanges have no access to the Internet. Additionally, access in many rural areas is of low speed and poor quality. This doesn't even include access to broadband, or high-speed Internet access, which is not available in numerous rural areas and small towns in Iowa and across the country. Other examples of the FCC's lack of focus on rural issues include a failure to understand how rural telephone cooperatives interact with their members, such as preventing rural telephone cooperatives from calling members to check on long distance preference changes, and an FCC definition that establishes a 3000 hertz level of basic voice grade service, when such a low level prevents Internet access on longer loops in rural areas. In order to effectively influence policy on rural telecommunications, this legislation gives the Rural Advocate the rank of a bureau chief within the FCC. The Rural Advocate will also have the authority to file comments or reports on any matter before the Federal Government affecting rural telecommunications without having to clear the testimony with the OMB or the FCC. Additionally, the Rural Advocate can file reports with the Administration, Congress and the FCC to recommend legislation or changes in policy. Finally, the Rural Advocate will be appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. President, in short, this legislation would allow rural America to enter the fast lane of the Information Superhighway. Again, thank you to my colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this proposal. I urge all Senators to consider joining us in moving this initiative forward. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to assist rural America, the Rural Telecommunications Improvement Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by our distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, as well as Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Conrad, Wellstone, Johnson, Wyden, Reid, Kerrey, Rockefeller and Murray. I would like to thank each of them for joining me in this effort to promote the interests of rural America within the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our legislation will establish an Office of Rural Advocacy within the FCC to promote access to advanced telecommunications in rural areas. The Rural Advocate will be responsible for focusing the Commission's attention on the importance of rural areas to the future of American prosperity, as well as on ensuring that Universal Service provisions mandated by the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act are being met and implemented. Our proposal is modeled on the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, which has been very successful in promoting the interests of small business within the U.S. government. Under our bill, the Office of Rural Advocacy will have 9 chief responsibilities: To promote access to advanced telecommunications service for populations in the rural United States; To develop proposals to better fulfill the commitment of the Federal Government to universal service and access to advanced telecommunications services in rural areas; To assess the effectiveness of existing Federal programs for providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; To measure the costs and other effects of Federal regulations on telecommunication carriers in rural areas; To determine the effect of Federal tax laws on providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; To serve as a focal point for the receipt of complaints, criticisms and suggestions concerning policies and activities of any department or agency of the Federal Government which affect the receipt of telecommunications services in rural areas; To counsel providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; To represent the views and interests of rural populations and providers of telecommunications services in rural areas; and To enlist the cooperation and assistance of public and private agencies, businesses, and other organizations in providing information about the telecommunications programs and services of the Federal Government which benefit rural areas and telecommunications companies. Mr. President, such an office within the FCC is needed for one very important reason, no bureau or Commissioner at the FCC has as an institutional role with the responsibility to promote the interests of rural telecommunications. The FCC has a great number of issues to consider due to the ever changing role of communications. Our legislation will ensure the FCC has the resources necessary to focus the Commission's attention on rural issues and will help establish an agenda at the FCC to address rural America's telecommunications needs, something the Commission has not done in the recent past. For example, the FCC's report on Advanced Telecommunications Services stated ``deployment of advanced telecommunications generally appear, at present, reasonable and timely.'' I can tell you Mr. President, this is not the case in Iowa where, according to the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), approximately 8% of our exchanges have no access to the Internet. Additionally, access in many rural areas is of low speed and poor quality. This doesn't even include access to broadband, or high-speed Internet access, which is not available in numerous rural areas and small towns in Iowa and across the country. Other examples of the FCC's lack of focus on rural issues include a failure to understand how rural telephone cooperatives interact with their members, such as preventing rural telephone cooperatives from calling members to check on long distance preference changes, and an FCC definition that establishes a 3000 hertz level of basic voice grade service, when such a low level prevents Internet access on longer loops in rural areas. In order to effectively influence policy on rural telecommunications, this legislation gives the Rural Advocate the rank of a bureau chief within the FCC. The Rural Advocate will also have the authority to file comments or reports on any matter before the Federal Government affecting rural telecommunications without having to clear the testimony with the OMB or the FCC. Additionally, the Rural Advocate can file reports with the Administration, Congress and the FCC to recommend legislation or changes in policy. Finally, the Rural Advocate will be appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. President, in short, this legislation would allow rural America to enter the fast lane of the Information Superhighway. Again, thank you to my colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this proposal. I urge all Senators to consider joining us in moving this initiative forward. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now back on the Frist-Ashcroft amendment. I am not going to proceed until we have order. I cannot even hear myself.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from the Council for Exceptional Children saying: While we . . . strongly support the removal of a student who endangers the safety or well-being of themselves or other students, we strongly oppose the cessation of services for any student. The Frist-Ashcroft amendment ceases those services. What they say is that the school districts may provide the services--may. We already heard one Senator yesterday say how much this costs. It may cost too much, and schools will say: It costs too much money; we are not going to do it; let somebody else provide the services. And the kid falls through the cracks. That is what happens. If you do not think the police know what they are talking about or the Council for Exceptional Children or the Correctional Education Association, how about the Parent Teacher Association? Do you honestly believe that the National PTA wants more dangerous schools? Here is a letter from the National PTA strongly--strongly--opposing the Frist- Ashcroft amendment: The National PTA supports Sens. Ashcroft's and Frist's goal of keeping children safe in school. Their amendment, however, would allow for the expulsion of special education students who possess a handgun in school, without ensuring alternative education services are provided. National PTA supports removing students who bring guns to school, but believes students should receive education services in an alternative setting. National PTA supports Senator Harkin's amendment, which clarifies that schools have the authority to remove any child who brings a gun to school [and continues to provide them services]. I ask unanimous consent the National PTA letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know the recent school tragedies--again, even another this very morning--are a call to action to us as families and churches and schools, as communities, as leaders in government, to take positive, constructive steps to make our schools places of learning and not of fear. But let's not use these tragedies of Littleton and other schools to take emotional, unfounded--although well-intentioned-actions which actually will make our schools and communities more unsafe and less secure. I want to make this point very, very clear. The Frist-Ashcroft amendment is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous amendment. The Frist- Ashcroft amendment guts IDEA. It actually will make our communities and our schools more unsafe. The purpose of this bill is to help make our schools and communities safer. That is the purpose of the bill in front of us. I must ask, is putting a child with a disability on the street and cutting off all services to that child something that will make our communities more safe? Frankly, it will have the opposite effect. This amendment, would, for example, lead to a child with an emotional disturbance being put on the street and end the counseling and behavioral modification services they had been receiving--end, them, cold turkey. No more counseling or behavioral modification services. And this kid is now on the street. Tell me, is that community safer? Obviously not, but that is just what this amendment would lead to. Troubled children out on the street with no supervision, no tracking, no education, no mental health services. This amendment targets a group of students who are more likely to be victims of school violence than perpetrators. Again I want to point out: Not any of the nine--now nine school shootings--in the last 39 months was done by a child in special education. Not one. Yet we have this amendment that targets kids with disabilities. This amendment is scapegoating--and I use that word, ``scapegoating''--scapegoating kids with disability. And it is destroying an important safety feature of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The supporters of the amendment say they need it because the law erected barriers that kept them from taking students who had guns in their possession out of schools. We showed yesterday--and the authors of this amendment agreed with me on this point--that a child with a disability who brings a gun to a school can be removed from that school immediately, just like any other child. We settled that yesterday. For a kid with a disability who brings a gun or firearm to school, right now, the principal can call up the sheriff or the police. They can come haul him away, book him, put him in jail, whatever the law is. So I hope no Senator votes on this amendment thinking that under the law as it exists today, a kid with a disability who comes to school with a gun can't be kicked out immediately. That is simply not true. Nothing in Federal law limits them from immediately removing him and keeping him out as long as that child is a threat to himself or others. Let me repeat that, the school can remove that child immediately and keep them in an alternative setting indefinitely as long as that child is a threat to himself or others. It couldn't be more clear than that. We worked long and hard, 3 years of hearings, hammering out the IDEA bill in 1997. And we passed it here in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, 98 to 1. We have had no hearings on this amendment, none whatsoever. But we had plenty of hearings to set up a framework in IDEA to make sure our schools and communities were safe. First, we wanted to make sure the schools were safe. Second, we wanted to make sure the communities were safe. Third, we wanted to make sure students with disabilities were held accountable for their actions and that schools have the flexibility to take appropriate and timely actions. Last, we wanted to make sure that decisions were based on facts relevant to the child, not just on emotions. Right now under the law, school authorities can unilaterally remove a child with a disability, first of all, for the first 10 days, and provide no services whatsoever. Second, if it is found that their actions were not a manifestation of their disability, then of course he is treated in the same manner as nondisabled children, and can be kept out in an alternative setting forever. If it is found by that the child's action was a manifestation of their disability, that child then is put into an alternative setting for up to 45 days. That alternative setting is determined by the local school districts. Now we heard yesterday that after 45 days the kid will be put back in school. That is just not so--only if he or she is no longer a danger. If that kid continues to pose a danger to himself or others, the school can repeat that 45 days again and again and again--for as long as it deems necessary. Finally, as I said, there is no way the law prohibits anyone from calling the police to come take any student out who has a gun. I also want to point out, IDEA specifically provides that school officials may obtain a court order anytime to remove a child with a disability from school or to change a child's current educational placement if they believe that maintaining the child in the current educational placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. So it is clear, current law addresses the issue. Frankly, we have a commonsense structure now. And, again, it was carefully designed to make schools and communities safer. The Senator from Missouri yesterday put up a chart showing the manifestation determination process, how you have to go through all these processes. Why do we do that? He made it seem like it was some bureaucratic maze, or jungle. The reason that we have this manifestation determination is so we can address the behavior of the child with the disability, to determine why that child acted the way the child did, and then to have the proper interventions so that child does not behave that way in the future. That's just common sense and it should not be eliminated as this amendment would do. Who does that process help, and who does that protect? Does it not protect the school? Does it not protect the local community? Of course, it does. If we can intervene and provide the proper kind of psychological help, maybe even medical help, educational help so that the child with a disability modifies his or her behavior, it seems to me that is what we want. Or are we saying under the Frist-Ashcroft amendment: We do not care; if a kid with a disability brings a gun to school, we do not care about that behavior; kick him out, put him out on the street, cut off all his services? Is that going to make our community safer? Is that going to make our schools safer? Is that going to protect students? If there is a question about that in anyone's mind, I point to the fact that the shooting in Oregon where students were tragically killed was committed by a kid who had been suspended without services from school. He went home, got a gun, and came back to school. I ask, what if a child in that circumstance was put in an alternative setting with supervision, with appropriate psychological help, behavior modification, supporting services? Would that kid have gone home to get the gun and come back to school? I think the odds would have been great that that kid would not. But instead he was put on the street unsupervised--just as this amendment allows for. That is the ``level playing field'' the supporters of this amendment advocate. Mr. President, that is why over 500 police leaders from this country are opposed to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from Fight Crime, Invest in Kids. The board of directors includes the president of the Fraternal Order of Police. It encompasses 500 police leaders--many of them the police chiefs in major cities from around the country. It says in part: . . . we urge you to oppose the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, and support the [amendment] to be offered by Senator Harkin.

Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, what you are saying is right now we would have 20 minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. Then you would vote up or down on the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, and then there would be--then what?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, these are the policemen talking. Do you know why they are saying this? Because they know if Frist-Ashcroft is adopted, they are going to dump these kids on the streets--kids with problems, emotional problems, kids with mental problems and behavioral problems, kids who are mentally retarded and may have other problems. They are going to dump them out on the street. That is safe? That is going to make our schools and our communities safe? Please, someone tell me how that is so. That is why the police are opposed to this amendment. I will read a portion of another statement: As police chiefs in America's largest cities, we know that investments today to help kids get the right start are among America's most powerful weapons against crime. Quality child care, parenting, coaching, and afterschool programs can help kids learn the values and skills they need to become good neighbors instead of criminals. We, therefore, call on all our public officials to adopt the policies described in Fight Crime, Invest in Kids. Help schools identify troubled and disruptive children and provide children and their parents with the counseling and training that can help get the kids back on track. These are not social scientists; these are policemen from around the country. Let me also read from the testimony of the Police Executive Research Forum--a leading national organization of police chiefs and senior law enforcement officials. Gil Kerlikowski, who at the time was president of this group and the police chief in Buffalo, New York testified at a recent congressional hearing on this topic. He said: Students who are expelled or suspended from school and left at home or on the street become my problem, and the problem of police across this country. They have greater opportunity to commit crimes, abuse drugs, or engage in disorderly behavior that affects the quality of life in any given neighborhood. They are also vulnerable to gangs and predators who can victimize and exploit them in ways that will impede any later efforts to put them on the right track. Today's police forces are ill-prepared to deal with these individuals--the rest of the criminal justice system even less so. I also have a letter from the Correctional Educational Association again stating that the Frist-Ashcroft amendment is more dangerous to our schools and our communities. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. OK. I am OK with that. I must be very honest with you. I have been waiting some time to be able to at least make my case on the floor. I have been more than willing to set everything aside and to let the process go ahead since yesterday. But I must tell you that since yesterday I have been waiting to get at least 15 to 20 minutes where I could just lay out my case on the Frist-Ashcroft amendment on IDEA, the background of it. I just believe I have to. I want to be able to fully make my case against the amendment. I do not want to take a lot of time, I do not want to filibuster it, but I would like to have 15 or 20 minutes just to lay out my case. That is all.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry that I did not hear the entire request, but the situation, as I understand it, prior to right now, was that after the supplemental, we were coming back to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment and I was to be recognized.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, four weeks ago, an unspeakable act of violence occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado when 12 innocent students, a heroic teacher and the two student gunmen were killed. This incident was the 8th deadly school shooting in 39 months. The tragedy at Columbine High School is still very fresh in our minds and our hearts. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the people of Littleton, Colorado. The students of Columbine have returned to classes in a neighboring school. They have taken an important first step in the healing process. Unfortunately, the scars of this tragedy will remain with them, their families, the Littleton community and the nation for a long time to come. In the aftermath of this most recent school shooting, we must examine the causes of the outbreak of violence and work on initiatives that will prevent such occurrences in the future. During the course of the debate on the pending legislation, Juvenile Justice Bill we have already discussed many of the issues related to violence. We must examine the impact that movies, music, television and video games have on outbreaks of violence. We must also curtail the easy access to guns that enable individuals to commit such acts of violence. We must also talk about how we can prevent such heinous acts from happening again. I would like to take a few moments to discuss one innovative program that can help us prevent violent acts from happening in the first place. Two weeks ago, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing on the important topic of school safety. We heard testimony from many experts about the extent of the problem and began an important search for solutions so that it will never, ever happen again. One of the witnesses was Jan Kuhl, the Director of Guidance and Counseling for the Des Moines School District. Jan talked about an innovative elementary school counseling program called Smoother Sailing and the impact the program has had on students in the Des Moines schools. Smoother Sailing operates on a simple premise--get to kids early to prevent problems rather than waiting for a crisis. As a result, the district more than tripled the number of elementary school counselors to make sure that at least one well-trained professional is available in every single elementary school building. Smoother Sailing began in 1988 as a pilot program in 10 elementary schools. The program increased the number of counselors in the elementary schools so there is one counselor for every 250 students-- the ratio recommended for an effective program. The participating schools began seeing many positive changes. After two years, the schools participating in Smoother Sailing saw a dramatic reduction in the number of students referred to the office for disciplinary reasons. During the 1987-88 school year, 157 students were referred to the office for disciplinary action. After two years of Smoother Sailing, the number of office referrals in those schools dropped to 83--a 47% reduction in office referrals. During the same period, Des Moines elementary schools with a traditional crisis intervention counseling program had only a 21% reduction in office referrals. There were other changes as well. Teachers in Smoother Sailing schools reported fewer classroom disturbances and principals noticed fewer fights in the cafeteria and on the playground. The schools and classrooms had become more disciplined learning environments. It was clear that Smoother Sailing was making a difference so the counseling program was then expanded to all 42 elementary schools in Des Moines in 1990. Smoother Sailing continues to be a success. Smoother Sailing helps students solve problems in a positive manner. Assessments of 4th and 5th grade students show that students can generate more than one solution to a problem. Further, the types of solutions were positive and proactive. We know that the ability to effectively solve problems is essential for helping students make the right decisions when confronted with violence or drugs. Smoother Sailing gets high marks in surveys of administrators, teachers and parents. They report a high degree of satisfaction with the program. 95% of parents surveyed said the counselor is a valuable part of my child's educational development. 93% said they would seek assistance from the counselor if the child was experiencing difficulties at school. Administrators credit Smoother Sailing with decreasing the number of students suspensions and referrals to the office for disciplinary action. In addition, principals report that the program is responsible for creating an atmosphere that is conducive to learning. Experts tell us that to be effective, there should be at least one counselor for every 250 students. Unfortunately, the current student- counselor ratio is more than double the recommended level--it is 531:1. That means counselors are stretched to the limit and cannot devote the kind of attention to children that is needed. In most schools, the majority of counselors are employed at the middle and secondary levels. Therefore, the situation is more acute in elementary schools where the student to counselor ratio is greater than 1000:1. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this table be inserted in the Record at this point. Smoother Sailing was the model for the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act, a section of the Elementary and Secondary School Act. It reauthorizes the program and authorizes $15 million to establish more effective elementary school programs. The amendment I am offering with Senators Lincoln and Wellstone is supported by several organizations--the American Counseling Association, the American School Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association the National Association of School Psychologists, the School of Social Work Association of America and the National Association of Social Workers. Mr. President, CNN and USA Today recently conducted a public opinion poll of Americans. They asked what would make a difference in preventing a future outbreak of violence similar to those that have occurred over the past 39 months. The leading response was to restrict access to firearms. The second most popular response--a response selected by 60% of those polled--was to increase the number of counselors in our nation's schools. We should heed the advice of the American people. We have a desperate need to improve counseling services in our nation's schools. Our amendment is an important first step in addressing this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent a table of U.S. counselor-to-students ratios be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. I have used up 14 minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of my time. There is no loophole here. The equity they keep talking about is an equity for danger. We keep hearing they are for safety in schools. We all are for safety, of course. Why is the National PTA opposed to this amendment? Why are 500 police leaders around the country opposed to this amendment? Why is the National Association of the State Boards of Education opposed to this amendment? Because they all know that the amendment we are about to vote on is a recipe for disaster. It will increase crime. It will increase drug use. It will increase the dropout rate. Why? I am really disappointed that anyone would say that we can take these kids who have severe problems, kick them out of school and cut off all supporting services and make communities safer. The police chiefs who have to deal with the aftermath know better. That is why they are opposed to this amendment. We know more than they do, and the Parent Teacher Association? Why are they opposed to the Ashcroft-Frist amendment? Because they realize it is a formula for disaster. That is what it is. This is a dangerous, dangerous amendment and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. President, after the vote on this amendment--by unanimous consent--the Senate will adopt the Harkin amendment. This is an amendment I have drafted and is cosponsored by the distinguished ranking member of the HELP committee, Senator Kennedy. Our amendment is supported by the police and other groups who oppose the Frist-Ashcroft amendment because it would make schools and communities safer. I'd like to say a few words about it and its intent. Passage of our amendment is very important. It is very important, because it requires that all children--whether they have a disability or not--are not just dumped in the streets after they commit an act of violence, including bringing a gun or firearm to school. Our amendment would require that schools provide immediate and appropriate supervision, tracking, educational, behavioral, health and related services to these children in order to reduce the likelihood that the child will repeat their anti-social and dangerous behavior. The interventions would be tailored to the individual child. This is absolutely critical and is demonstrated to actually make a difference. It will save lives and money in the long run. It makes common sense. The Harkin amendment also authorizes the funds necessary to assist our schools in providing this critical intervention. So passage of the Harkin-Kennedy amendment--which will occur by voice vote after this roll call vote on the Frist-Ashcroft amendment--is a very important amendment. Its adoption puts the Senate on record as supporting the recommendations and pleas of the police, parents and teachers.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a number of other organizations whose letters in opposition to this amendment I want to print in the Record: the United Cerebral Palsy Association, Learning Disabilities Association of America, the ARC of the United States, the American Association of Mental Retardation, the Easter Seals of Missouri, the Easter Seals of Tennessee, and a number of others. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. What does this do to that?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me just say that being for or against this bill is basically a tossup, as far as I am concerned. It is one of those 51-49 types of propositions. So that is how I am going to come down on the 51-percent side, and vote for the conference report. First of all, this is not a time to indicate anything less than full support for our troops in Kosovo and the surrounding areas. There is also in this conference report some much-needed farm assistance and disaster assistance for the United States and Central America. However, I must say there are parts of the bill to which I register my stiff opposition. First, this bill forfeits the opportunity to ensure that tobacco settlement money is used to fight smoking and to promote health--that is not in here. In fact, just the opposite. Second, the bill provides only a fraction of critically and urgently needed farm assistance. Let me just talk for a moment about that subject. This is an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We take care of emergencies in Central America and other places. But one of the very biggest emergencies facing us today is the emergency in American agriculture. Export prospects are dismal. Exports for this year are projected to fall to $49 billion, which is a 19-percent decline from 1996. Asia still hasn't recovered. Net farm income for major commodities could drop to $17 billion compared to an average of $23 billion a year for the previous 5 years. Net farm income for major field crops will be 27 percent below what it was for the last 5 years. It is true that there is some farm assistance in this package, and I was pleased to work with my colleagues to get it in the bill. But it is not enough, and it is too late. The White House sent up the supplemental appropriations request for additional farm loan funds and Farm Service Agency funding on February 26. Now here we are just getting to it, nearly three months later. This money was critically and urgently needed for the planting season. Now we are just getting around to it, even though the planting season is well over halfway past. The farm assistance that we have in the bill is good. Sure, an aspirin is good, if you have a major illness and you have some pain. But it doesn't get to the real root cause of it, and neither does the assistance in this bill. It falls far short of what is needed. I offered an amendment in the conference committee to address the deepening crisis in the farm economy. The amendment addressed a range of farm income problems in the crop, livestock and dairy sectors, and it dealt with agriculture's economic crisis around our nation, not just in one or two regions. Regrettably, that amendment failed on a 14-14 tie vote of Senate conferees. The amendment lacked just one vote. So we will be back again on whatever measures we can get up on the floor this year to provide critically and urgently needed economic assistance to our farm families and our rural communities. All I can say is that when it came to the issue of Kosovo, we were willing to meet our obligations and respond to the emergency. In fact, the conferees had no trouble coming up with $5 billion more than what was asked for in military spending. But we couldn't come up with the money needed to help our beleaguered farmers and the rural economy. Finally, I also want to say a word about offsets for this bill. For the small portion of the bill that is offset, there was a beeline to go after programs that are vital to the most vulnerable in our society: food stamps and housing. Hunger and poverty remain persistent and pervasive problems in our society. Now we know these rescissions are not genuine offsets, since there are not outlay reductions associated with them. So perhaps there is no harm, but clearly these offsets should not lay the groundwork or create a precedent for future rescissions that actually reduce program benefits. Again, on the whole, I will vote for the conference report. I just want to register my objections to two major portions of the conference report, farm assistance and tobacco, which I consider to be totally inadequate. I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time. needed support for the pan am 103 families