Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Torricelli.

Mr. HARKIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield that back to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my chairman and friend from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. Again, let's cut through all the arguments, all the smoke and the haze, if you will. What is this about? It is about public health. It is about cutting down on youth smoking. That is what it is about. Now, my friend from Florida--with whom I wanted to engage in a colloquy, but I understand he had to go to a committee meeting--pointed out that a lot of the States sued on different bases--RICO, racketeering, prices--but 32 States, including Florida, included Medicaid. As any good lawyer can tell you, it is the old ``spaghetti theory'' of suing. You just throw the spaghetti at the wall, and whatever sticks, that is what you go on. They just threw a bunch of stuff in there when they sued to recoup from the tobacco companies. But it is interesting to note that, in the final settlement, the States waived their rights in the future to sue to reclaim any moneys under Medicaid. Why was that put in there? I will tell you why. Because the tobacco companies wanted it in there, because it not only precluded the States from suing, it precludes the Federal Government from recouping Federal shares of money for the health costs that we pay out in Medicaid to take care of people who are sick and dying of tobacco- related illnesses. That is what this is all about. Some say we should not mandate to the States how to spend their money. We are not trying to do that. The basis of this is public health. At least a portion of the Federal moneys--not even all of it-- ought to go to smoking cessation programs and for a variety of other public health programs. The Senator from Pennsylvania knows as well as I do--we sit on the Appropriations Committee as chairman and ranking member--we have a lot of public health needs out there. We are getting shortchanged. I know States have needs for highways, bridges, sports arenas, prisons and things like that; but I daresay they did not bring these suits against the tobacco companies because the tobacco companies weren't building enough highways or sports arenas or prisons or anything else. What they brought it on was the health problems that tobacco companies are causing their people. Well, I might also point out that, in the previous settlement with the Liggett tobacco company, some States did give back their portion of that settlement to the Federal Government, covering the Medicaid portions of those costs. I don't have the exact figures, but I believe Florida was one of those States--Florida, Louisiana, and Massachusetts were the three States that returned some of that money. So that is really what this is about. I know the Governors have weighed in on this, both Democrats and Republicans. Well, I can understand their point. They are trying to get as much money as they can for their States; that is their responsibility. But it seems to me that we have to look at the national picture and what this is all about. It is about health care and cutting down on teen smoking. That is what this is really about. To cut through all the smoke and haze, let us do our responsibility to the Federal taxpayers, to the Medicaid Program, and give some guidance and direction--not explicitly saying how the States have to spend it; let them use their wisdom--but give them guidance and direction and say that at least 20 percent has to be used for smoking cessation and 30 percent for a broad variety of other public health measures, including helping tobacco farmers switch from that crop to others. It is the only decent thing to do. I reserve the time I have. How much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I thank my friend and my colleague and my leader, Senator Specter, for bringing forth this amendment, which is common sense and which goes to the heart of what the smoking problem in America is all about. It is about health. I might just say, at the outset, really the provision in the supplemental bill we are talking about should not even be on the supplemental. It is not an appropriations measure. It more appropriately ought to be in the Finance Committee, but it was slipped in as a rider on the appropriations bill, the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison. What Senator Hutchison's amendment says is all the money already recouped by the States in their settlement with the tobacco companies should be kept by the States and they can do with it whatever they want to do with it. That is all right as far at the State's money goes. I have no problem with that. But that also includes the Federal share of Medicaid. As I have continually pointed out, under the Social Security Act the States are required to go after recoupments in Medicaid from third parties. In fact, they are the only ones who can sue for third party recoupment. The Federal Government is preempted from doing that. Only the States can do that. So they act as an agent for the Federal Government and recoup them. Keep in mind, the law states, regarding any money recouped by the States for Medicaid, the Federal portion has to be returned to the Federal Government. We have to keep in mind what we are talking about here. Are we talking about the fact that the tobacco companies didn't build a number of highways in Texas? Or that they did not build prisons in Alabama? Or they did not build a sports arena in Michigan--or on and on and on? No. That is not why these lawsuits were brought. They were brought because tobacco is the biggest killer we have in America today. You add up alcohol, accident, suicide, homicide, AIDS, illegal drugs, fires--add them all up and tobacco kills more a year than all of these combined. What has this tobacco debate been about, that we have been here for years and years on end debating? That is what it is about. Tobacco is hooking young people, getting them addicted. And the tobacco companies have lied and lied and lied, year after year, and covered up, and fought with powerful money and powerful interests here in Washington to keep us from doing what we need to do to protect the public health. That is what it is all about. Now, the CDC estimates that smoking among high school students has risen 32 percent since 1991--32 percent. The tobacco companies say they are going to cut down on their advertising to kids and stuff. If they really want to do that, get rid of the Marlboro Man. You don't see the Marlboro Man disappearing, do you? No, he is still out there. And the Virginia Slims and all that kind of stuff is still out there; the Marlboro gear--that is all out there. They are still hooking kids. Tobacco, an estimated $50 billion a year in health care costs alone, and a big portion of that is borne by the Federal taxpayers who finance over half the costs of Medicaid. Again, to repeat for emphasis' sake, what does the Specter amendment do? It only would require the States to use 20 percent of the total settlement to reduce tobacco use and 30 percent for public health programs or tobacco farmer assistance, helping some of our tobacco farmers, and we would then waive the Federal claim to the tobacco settlement funds. We do not dictate what the States spend their money on. If the States want to take their portion and build a sports arena, that is up to the voters of that State. I can tell you if it happened in my State, I would be on the side of any other taxpayers in my State, suing the Governor or anybody else who was spending the money that way, because I think that money is held in trust for the very purposes which I just enumerated, and that is to cut down on smoking and to help the public health. CBO estimates the Federal share would be about $14 billion over 5 years. Others are saying that the Federal Government had no role in these lawsuits. I just covered that. Under the Social Security Act, it is the responsibility of the States to recover any costs and, in fact, the law states that only the States can file such suits. I want to correct something that was said last night by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions. He claimed that only one State had filed suit to recover tobacco-related Medicaid costs. Sorry. That is wrong. In fact, the following States had Medicaid claims in their lawsuits: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin--all had Medicaid claims in their lawsuits. I think this is really the crux of it--whether or not a State included a Medicaid claim isn't the issue. The fact is every State that settled in November of 1998, and that included all 50 States and the territories, even those that did not include a Medicaid claim in their suit, waived their right to recover tobacco-related Medicaid costs in the future. Why do you think that was put in the settlement? If, in fact, the lawsuits were not about Medicaid, why do you think that the tobacco companies came in and insisted, as a condition of the settlement, that the States had to waive their right for any future suits based on Medicaid? It is curious. If that is not what this was all about, why did they put that in there? Because the tobacco companies, smart lawyers that they have got, knew this is what it is about. It is about health care. It is about hooking kids on smoking. They could see that the States are going to get all this money. What do the States want to do with it? They want to reduce debt. They want to build prisons and highways. They want to reduce taxes. How many are going to use it to cut down on what the tobacco companies are most afraid of? What they are afraid of is losing young people who would not be smoking, who won't take up the habit. That is what they are afraid of. That is why they put it in there. Not only did the settlement waive the right of the States forever to sue to recoup for Medicaid, it waives our rights, the Federal Government's rights to sue. Why? Because under the Social Security law, only the States can sue for recoupment under third parties. When they waive their right, they waive our rights. The States, in making this deal with the tobacco companies, have effectively taken away the right of the Federal Government to go into court and to go after tobacco companies to get the Federal taxpayers' share of the money for the health care costs of Medicaid. That is what it is about. The provision put in by the Senator from Texas says let them have it. Let the States have all this money. If they want to build highways, let them build them. I tell my colleagues, I know where the tobacco lobby is on this one. The tobacco lobby is foursquare for this provision in the bill, because they do not want States spending money to cut down on teen smoking. Some States will. I compliment and commend the Governor of my own State of Iowa who has said that they will use a large portion of this for education, intervention, cutting down on youth smoking. How much, I do not know, a large portion of it. Again, this is a bipartisan, commonsense amendment. For the life of me, I do not know why anyone would oppose it, unless it is under some theory that we can't tell the States what to do with this money. I don't want to tell the States what to do with their money, but when the Federal taxpayers provide over 50 percent of Medicaid monies to the States and we are paying 50 billion bucks a year in health-related costs and much of that through Medicaid, then I think we have a right and an obligation to say that some portion of that money that is Federal money ought to go for health-related purposes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Michigan, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, a leader in this area and, obviously, way ahead of me on this topic, who has done a lot of research and work on this. I appreciate that and the kind of information he has given out with this chart he has developed. In taking that assurance, I would withdraw my amendment. How much more time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, for the information of Senators, I intend to withdraw this amendment after talking about it and engaging in somewhat of a colloquy with Senator Cochran, and I think Senator Levin also wanted to speak on this. Basically, let me describe what the amendment does. It requires that not later than January 1 of 2001, the President will submit to Congress a comparative study. It is a study that would provide a quantitative analysis of the relevant risks and the likelihood of the full range of current and emerging national security threats to the territory of the United States. This says: It shall be carried out in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of all other departments and agencies of the Federal Government that have responsibilities, expertise, and interests that the President considers relevant to the comparison. Then I listed a number of items, including long-range ballistic missiles; bombers and other aircraft; cruise missiles; submarines; surface ships; biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons; and any other weapons of mass destruction that are delivered by means other than missiles, including covert means and commercial methods, such as cargo aircraft, cargo ships, trucks, and any other means. I would like to describe what I am getting at here. As we look at the bill before us, S. 257, which is kind of narrowly drawn in terms of ballistic missile defense, we seem to be getting kind of overfocus on this, a focus that if only we build some kind of a ballistic missile defense system, it will secure us from the weapons of mass destruction that threaten us. But I am not so certain that is really the major threat that we face, and whether or not all of the money put into that, all of our eggs into that basket, so to speak, really would protect us from what I consider to be more viable and determinable threats to our national security. For example, what about some of the key threats we hear about every day? Well, I have a chart that lists some of the typical types of national security threats facing our Nation today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the chart in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. For example, a national missile defense system would be ineffective against a truck-bomb attack on the United States. Of course, we have had some experience, regrettably, in that area. It would not be effective against a chemical weapons attack in the United States. Now, we haven't had that, but Japan has. What about biological weapons that would be delivered by a terrorist? No small threat. It seems like there is an anthrax incident every week here in the country. Again, if there is an anthrax scare, the first line of defense is going to be the local police and firefighters struggling to deal with the threat, and our State and local public health officials, and other health care people. However, a national missile defense system is no solution to combat this very viable threat. The list goes on with a cruise missile attack. It is much cheaper for a country to engage in; it would be launched offshore. Yet, a national missile defense would be ineffective. Even a bomber attack, coming in under our radar screens, would be ineffective for missile defense; and even some of the ``loose nukes'' in the former Soviet Union, if in fact there were to be warheads smuggled out of the Soviet Union and enter the country by boat, plane, or truck across our borders. A missile defense is totally ineffective. Also listed is the theater missile defense, which would also be ineffective against those threats. General Shelton of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agrees and has said: There are other serious threats out there in addition to that posed by ballistic missiles. We know, for example, that there are adversaries with chemical and biological weapons that can attack the United States today. They could do it with a briefcase--by infiltrating our territory across our shores or through our airports. I am just concerned that we are focusing so much on this national ballistic missile defense that we are forgetting about these other more determinable and viable threats. My amendment seeks to provide for a study, sort of a comparative study, and a quantitative analysis of these risks: What is the risk of a ballistic missile attack on the United States? What is that? And what is the risk of, say, a biological weapons attack on the United States? What do we have, either deployed or in development, to protect against each one of those?--thinking about the relative risk. I wanted this study to be done by January 1, 2001, before we go rushing down the road investing more billions of dollars into a ballistic missile defense that would prove absolutely defenseless against these other viable threats. That is what I was seeking to do with this amendment. I have had some conversations with the Senator from Mississippi about this. I yield for any colloquy that we might engage in on this.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Mississippi. I understand that in the intelligence community that they only look at possible threats but they don't make a comparative analysis, nor do they deal with the status of how the United States counters the threats. Again, I am saying we need also to engage those agencies on the front line, not just the Pentagon. But I am talking about the Department of Justice, FBI, and HHS--all of these agencies that handle biological, chemical threats. We need to engage them in this comparative quantitative analysis. Again, I want to make it clear to my friend from Mississippi that I basically was not going to support the bill because I felt that the words ``technologically feasible'' in the bill and saying that we should deploy as soon as technologically possible--that that was kind of putting the cart before the horse. I was also concerned a little bit about what this might mean for further negotiations on arms control, our START II and possibly the START III, and the ABM Treaty. But with the adoption of the Landrieu amendment last night, I think that puts a balance here. I don't mind the research and stuff that goes into looking at a possible ballistic missile defense. I think we have to examine all of these. But it has to be done in a balanced way and in a way that sort of takes into account what those threats are to our national security on kind of a quantitative basis without putting everything in just sort of one basket, so to speak. But I think with the adoption of the Landrieu amendment that it is much more balanced. And I therefore support the bill. I wanted to offer this amendment to try to again put that balance in the bill while looking at these other possible threats. I understand what the Senator says--that perhaps this is more amenable, or a more likely prospect for the armed services authorization bill. I take that in good faith. I spoke with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and also ranking member, Senator Levin, about this. I think I can represent that Senator Warner was open to the idea, without knowing more about it and without having had an opportunity to really fully look at it.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. I will just take about 5 more minutes. I cannot resist the opportunity to talk a little bit about this concept of the ballistic missile defense system. I was just reading the history of what happened in France prior to World War II. I got to thinking; someone described this ballistic missile defense as sort of our new Maginot Line, so I said I want to find out about the Maginot Line, really what it was. Louis Snyder wrote the ``Historical Guide to World War II.'' It is a basic reference work for anyone studying the history of World War II. I recommend that my colleagues read through this volume of history, especially the story of the Maginot Line. In the late 1920s and 1930s, France constructed a huge series of fortifications on its border with Germany. It was named after Andre Maginot, French minister of war who started the project. A huge workforce constructed the fortifications that were considered impregnable by the French military. More than 26 million cubic feet of cement was used to build a series of giant pillboxes, gun turrets, and dragons teeth. Elevators led to underground passages that included living quarters, hospitals, cafeterias, and storehouses. It sounds like our missile silo bunkers. More than $1 billion was spent by the French military. That is in 1930s dollars. Factored today that would be $12 billion they spent to build the Maginot Line, and from a nation much smaller than the United States. It was truly an awesome endeavor intended to thwart a great threat to France; that is, an invasion by Germany. Of course, there was just one problem. The German military high command were no fools. They developed an adequate counter. They simply went around the Maginot Line. By going through Belgium, the Maginot Line proved almost useless in defending the French homeland, and it did nothing to counter the blitzkrieg tactics used by the Germans to counter static defenses. I might also add here that Gen. Charles de Gaulle, who I believe was not a general at that time but a colonel, opposed the Maginot Line, but the French Government, I am sure, probably in sort of a working relationship with concrete people and builders and those who wanted to make a lot of money building this huge fortification, decided to go down that road. Charles de Gaulle warned of the blitzkrieg coming and that the Maginot Line would do nothing to protect them against it. I think the analogy of the Maginot Line to ballistic missile defense is startling. Are we going to spend tens of billions of dollars on a defense against a single threat? Will our enemies simply go around the ballistic missile defense, our Maginot Line? Of course, they will. The counter is simple. Truck bombs, weapons of mass destruction slipped into our country by plane, boat, or truck would all go around the ballistic missile defense. Perhaps some of my colleagues want a simple answer to real and potential threats from around the world. We want a simple silver bullet defense against a dangerous world. We may spend billions of dollars for this new Maginot Line, but the result will be the same as it was for the French 60 years ago. Life is just more complicated than what a national missile defense could counter. In fact, the Maginot Line analogy applies, I think, to the psychology of missile defense. As Louis Snyder wrote, ``The French public, too, had an almost mystical faith in the Maginot Line and believed its defense to be absolute and total.'' Mr. President, I hope we don't fall in the same trap, but ever since star wars started under the Reagan administration, we have had this sort of concept that we could build some kind of a dome over the United States that would be impregnable, that would totally and fully protect all of our citizens. That is mythical. There is no such dome. A truck bomb, a terrorist attack by boat, a suitcase, anthrax poisoning, that missile shield would never protect us from anything such as that. So I hope and trust that the authorizing committee will take a look at all these other threats, I think much more real, much more determinable, and I believe much more effectively countered other systems than a national ballistic missile defense system. So that, again, was the purpose of my amendment. It was to try to bring balance. I appreciate the fact that this bill is focused on one area. But I still believe that this is the way we ought to go if we are going to make any rational decisions around here on how we spend our taxpayers' dollars on defense. I think we need this kind of study, and I appreciate what Senator Levin has said. I appreciate his leadership. In my conversation with Senator Warner from Virginia, the chairman, he was open to this, and I hope and trust that the Armed Services Committee will proceed down that line and provide us with the kind of balanced information we need on the Appropriations Committee before we go down this road of spending billions of dollars on a ballistic missile defense. Amendment No. 75 Withdrawn Mr. President, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Jacob Bylund, an intern in my office, for consideration of S. 257 today.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I will offer and then I will engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend and congratulate Senator Specter, my chairman, for taking the lead on this issue, for holding the hearings, doing all the work that is necessary to get the information that we need to come up with this amendment. Senator Specter has certainly been the lead in addressing this very vital issue of health in the United States, medical research, and all that goes along with making our people healthier citizens. He has always taken a lead on this one issue of how we get tobacco use down among teenagers, which is one of the most serious health risks in our society today. I want to thank Senator Specter for taking the lead on this amendment. It is a very, very, very important amendment. The repercussions of this single amendment alone could do more to enhance the health of our young people in the future than perhaps anything we are going to do this year. I will get into more about that later, but this single amendment, if adopted, I maintain, will do more to enhance the well-being and health of our future citizens--the kids today--10, 15, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, than anything that we will do this year. Why do I say that? Look at this chart. This really illustrates what is happening today and continuing to happen with the consumption of tobacco. Tobacco kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs and fires, all combined. I use this chart a lot because I think it just spells it out in stark detail. Add up everything from alcohol to homicides to AIDS and illegal drugs. How much money do we spend every year fighting illegal drugs? Compare it to how many people die of tobacco-related illnesses. It is minute. This is what we are going after--cutting down the illnesses and deaths caused by tobacco uses in this country. It is an epidemic. Tobacco also imposes a heavy financial cost, $50 billion a year estimated in health costs alone. And a big portion of that is borne by Federal taxpayers, who, as the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, pay over half the cost of Medicaid. The average, as he said, is 57 percent. Sometimes it goes as high as 77 percent. In no case is it less than 50 percent of the Federal taxes used to fund the Medicaid programs in the States. I want to commend the States for their efforts to recover the costs that they and the Federal Government have borne related to tobacco. What our amendment does, as the Senator from Pennsylvania very correctly pointed out, is simply require the States to use 20 percent of the total settlement on reducing tobacco use, mainly going after teen smoking, because if we know we can get it there, we solve the problem, but just to use 20 percent of that and 30 percent for public health programs--again, public health broadly; we did not spell it out, we did not try to micromanage--or for tobacco farmer assistance, to help some of the tobacco farmers in some of our States in their transition away from growing tobacco to doing something else. Again, our amendment did not in any way dictate specific programs the states can spend the money on. It did not require the Federal Government have a role in designing any initiative the states undertake. This amendment simply sets broad, commonsense parameters on a portion of the funds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Federal share of the State's tobacco settlement would total $14 billion over the next 5 years. That is a lot of money, $14 billion. I know there are some who are saying that the Federal Government had no role in these lawsuits; therefore, no right to these funds. I heard that argument made in the committee when the amendment was adopted. That is not true. If it were true, we would not be here today. Keep in mind that Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership. The Federal Government pays over 50 percent of the cost of each State's Medicaid Program. But here is the real clincher. Under the Social Security Act, it is the responsibility of the States to recover any costs caused by third parties. In fact, the law says that only the States can file such suits. It is really kind of, I think, shading the truth a little bit to say the Federal Government was not involved in the lawsuits. The Federal Government could not be involved in the lawsuits. By law, only the States can file such suits. Then the Medicaid law requires a State to turn back to the Federal Government its share of any money the State recovers. That is the law. A, the Social Security Act says it is the responsibility of the States to recover any costs caused by third parties. B, the law says only the States can file such lawsuits. C, Medicaid law says the States then have to turn back to the Federal Government its share of any Federal money that they recover. All right. What happened? The States settled this case with the tobacco companies, and in November of 1998, when the States settled this case, even those that did not include a Medicaid claim in their suit, waived their right to any future claims under Medicaid. Think about that. If the States, in conjunction with the tobacco companies--and I have to hand it to the tobacco companies, they have great lawyers; they have the best--they negotiated with the States that if you settle for $206 billion over 25 years, we will agree to that if you waive your right to any future claims under Medicaid. The States said, ``We waive our rights.'' By waiving their rights, they waive our rights, the Federal Government's rights, to go out and reclaim any of those Federal tax dollars that went out. So the States have, by using the law, precluded us on the Federal end from reclaiming any of these moneys. It is just not right. Federal taxpayers have provided over 50 percent of those Medicaid payments to those States. As I said, the law requires the States to file those lawsuits and only the States can file those lawsuits. The States then must, under the law, return those funds to the Federal Government. Yet, they made an agreement with the tobacco companies to waive all of their rights and, thus, waiving our rights. Turning over all of the Federal share of the tobacco settlement to the States without any requirement that a penny of the funds be used to reduce teen smoking defies common sense. The whole purpose of this effort was to protect our kids and to cut down on smoking. Now that the States have settled with the tobacco companies, it only makes sense to use some of those moneys to strengthen the public health system and to fight tobacco use. As the Senator from Pennsylvania said, I have to ask the questions: Did the States file their lawsuits against the tobacco companies because the tobacco companies were not building highways in their States? Did the States file a lawsuit against the tobacco companies because they were not building enough prisons in their States? Did the States file the lawsuit against the tobacco companies because you, tobacco companies, were not building a sports arena in our State? Did they file the lawsuit because you, tobacco companies, were not building enough highways in our State? No, that was not the basis of the lawsuit. The basis of the lawsuit was the health impact on its citizens from smoking. Now we hear from the States, oh, now they want to use the money for highways, they want to use the money to build some prisons, they want to use the money to build a sports arena, they want to use the money for tax relief, and on and on and on and on. That was not the basis for the lawsuits. The basis for the lawsuits were to recoup the costs that Medicaid spent taking care of the health impacts of smoking on our people. It had nothing to do with paving a highway or building a prison or anything else. Again, we are not even saying that the States have to use their money for that. If the States want to use their share of the money to build a prison, that is their business. I can tell you, if I were a citizen of a State, and our State legislature and Governor were spending money that way, I would be vocal about it in my State, and I assume other people would be in their States. But that is not for us here at the Federal level. It is for us at the Federal level to say how about the Federal portion. What should you do with that? Should we be allowed to build highways with it when the basis of the lawsuit had to do with the health impact and the deaths of people that we paid for on Medicaid to take care of them because they got hooked on tobacco, because they were lied to by the tobacco companies? All we are saying is that the Federal share be used to attack tobacco use and to protect the public health. How much are we saying? Fifty percent: 20 percent to reduce teen smoking, 30 percent for a broad variety of public health programs to reduce smoking or to assist farmers, to assist the tobacco farmers. No State receives less than 50 percent of its Medicaid money from the Federal Government. Some States receive as high as 77 percent. The average is 57 percent. So actually we are being somewhat generous in this amendment. We are not saying you have to spend even all of your Federal moneys. Some States are going to get a windfall. Those States that are getting 70 percent of their Medicaid moneys paid for by the Federal Government, if our amendment is adopted, will have at least 20 percent of that Federal money that they can use as they see fit. Rather than trying to draw the line in each State, we just settled on the 50 percent and said that is fair for everybody. It gives some States, I will admit, a bit of a windfall. Again, it does not take away from any State any more than the Federal shares that they already get. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan, commonsense amendment. I hope all of our colleagues can support it. It will be a dramatic step forward in saving lives and protecting children and saving billions of dollars in future health care costs. I know you are going to hear talk about how all the Governors support the Hutchison amendment that was added in committee. By the way, it should not even be on this bill. It should be in the Finance Committee. All the Governors support it. I said to myself, ``If I was Governor, I probably would support it, too.'' But I am not a Governor. I represent my State, but we all have to represent the national interest here. More than that, we have to represent the interest of those people who are getting hooked on tobacco and what this tobacco lawsuit was all about. So I think we ought to keep that in mind as the debate goes forward. I know we will hear some more this evening, but tomorrow morning we will have more debate on the amendment and we will have more to say at that time. Again, what we have to keep in mind is the basic underlying fact: Why was the lawsuit brought? On what basis? On the health basis, Medicare expenditures to pay for the sickness and illness and death of people. Who put the money into Medicaid? The Federal Government, 57 percent average; States, 43 percent average. Law requires the States to file the lawsuits. Law requires the States to return to the Federal Government the Federal Government share of those lawsuits. Law--only the States can file those lawsuits. Settlement facts--States settle with the tobacco companies and strike a sweetheart deal, where they waive all of our rights to ever sue again under Medicaid to recoup those costs--waive our rights. Think about that. That is why this amendment is so important, Mr. President. If this amendment is adopted, it will have a big impact on cutting down on health care costs in the future. That is what it is all about. I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation calling upon the National Park Service to conduct a study of the Loess Hills in western Iowa. This study would be the first official step towards possible national protection for the Loess Hills. Specifically, this legislation would require the National Park Service to monitor the area between Waubansie State Park and Stone Park to study the possibility of a portion of this area to receive National Park status. Loess Hills is a unique national treasure that was formed by ancient glaciers and hundreds of centuries of westerly winds. Only the loess soil in China has accumulated as high as Iowa's. Although these hills have survived for hundreds of centuries, today they are beginning to crumble. Urban sprawl is unfortunately beginning to take its toll on Loess Hills. Protecting this area must be given a high priority. In 1986, the Loess Hills area was designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service. This gives recognition to this area as an area of national significance. Although this designation encourages landowners to use conservation practices in use of the area, this designation does nothing to control land ownership or to restrict land use. The only thing holding the loess in place is the roots of the vegetation. Today, however, as the human exploitation of the hills continues to increase the destruction of the vegetation, loess is left once again blowing in the winds as the fragile hills begins to flatten. This is of great concern to me. This area which marks one of the only remaining natural ecosystems in the state is one of the few areas where Iowans can experience nature. Iowa presently ranks 49th among the 50 states in National Park and Forest space. Iowa is also 400 miles away from a sizable national recreation area (the Boundary Waters Canoe Area). The Loess Hills, however, is an area of national significance and has the potential to be a much needed National Park for the Plains States. Mr. President, since 1992, I have secured funding through the United States Department of Agriculture to design better bridges and other structures in the Loess Hills area to reduce soil erosion. But more needs to be done. One thing I would like to make clear--this study can only be successfully implemented with the participation of local governments in western Iowa and private property owners. The Loess Hills are an Iowa treasure. This legislation would begin the process of making Loess Hills a national treasure. I invite my colleagues to join me as co-sponsors of this much needed legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation calling upon the National Park Service to conduct a study of the Loess Hills in western Iowa. This study would be the first official step towards possible national protection for the Loess Hills. Specifically, this legislation would require the National Park Service to monitor the area between Waubansie State Park and Stone Park to study the possibility of a portion of this area to receive National Park status. Loess Hills is a unique national treasure that was formed by ancient glaciers and hundreds of centuries of westerly winds. Only the loess soil in China has accumulated as high as Iowa's. Although these hills have survived for hundreds of centuries, today they are beginning to crumble. Urban sprawl is unfortunately beginning to take its toll on Loess Hills. Protecting this area must be given a high priority. In 1986, the Loess Hills area was designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service. This gives recognition to this area as an area of national significance. Although this designation encourages landowners to use conservation practices in use of the area, this designation does nothing to control land ownership or to restrict land use. The only thing holding the loess in place is the roots of the vegetation. Today, however, as the human exploitation of the hills continues to increase the destruction of the vegetation, loess is left once again blowing in the winds as the fragile hills begins to flatten. This is of great concern to me. This area which marks one of the only remaining natural ecosystems in the state is one of the few areas where Iowans can experience nature. Iowa presently ranks 49th among the 50 states in National Park and Forest space. Iowa is also 400 miles away from a sizable national recreation area (the Boundary Waters Canoe Area). The Loess Hills, however, is an area of national significance and has the potential to be a much needed National Park for the Plains States. Mr. President, since 1992, I have secured funding through the United States Department of Agriculture to design better bridges and other structures in the Loess Hills area to reduce soil erosion. But more needs to be done. One thing I would like to make clear--this study can only be successfully implemented with the participation of local governments in western Iowa and private property owners. The Loess Hills are an Iowa treasure. This legislation would begin the process of making Loess Hills a national treasure. I invite my colleagues to join me as co-sponsors of this much needed legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning Methamphetamine reduction legislation the Senator from the State of New Mexico and I are introducing today. Methamphetamine is fast becoming a leading illegal drug in our Nation. From quiet suburbs, to city streets, to the corn rows of Iowa, meth destroys thousands of lives and families every year. This highly addictive drug is reaching epidemic proportions as it sweeps from the west coast, ravages the Midwest, and begins to touch the East. To illustrate the violence it elicits in people, methamphetamine is cited as a contributing factor in 80 percent of domestic violence cases in Iowa and a leading factor in a majority of violent crimes committed in the State. In 1996, I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Methamphetamine Control Act, which has done some good. However, in talking to local enforcement and concerned citizens across Iowa and the Midwest, its obvious that the methamphetamine problem has exploded beyond anything we envisioned in 1996. The number of meth arrests, court cases, and confiscation on labs continues to escalate. In the Midwest alone, the number of clandestine meth labs confiscated and destroyed for 1998 is five times the number confiscated and destroyed in 1997. The cost of cleanup for each lab ranges from $5,000 to $90,000 and creates a toxic trap to law enforcement officers and children who find them. Mr. President, the Midwest is not alone in this battle. The impact of this epidemic has reached the West and Southwest, including the state of New Mexico. In Albuquerque alone, law enforcement has seized four times as much meth last year as they did in the previous year, and they have identified and shut down twice as many meth labs as they had in the previous year. New Mexico has also seen an increase in meth trafficking on the New Mexico-Mexico border, as have the States of Arizona and California. The problem has spread to the rural communities and my colleague, Senator Bingaman, is concerned that the cheap cost of meth will threaten America's youth with yet another life-threatening drug. That's why today, Senator Bingaman and I are introducing the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse Reduction Act of 1999. Senators Murray and Johnson are cosponsoring this measure. A similar bill is being introduced in the House by Congressman Boswell. This legislation takes a comprehensive, common sense approach in battling this growing epidemic. It calls for an increase in resources to law enforcement working through the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program and establishes swift and certain penalties for those producing and peddling meth. It also reauthorizes and expands drug courts to help nonviolent drug abusers rid themselves of an addiction that leads them to other crimes. Our legislation expands school and community-based prevention efforts at the local level--targeting those areas that need it the most. That includes funding to allow students to develop their own anti-meth education programs to teach their school peers about the destructive effects of this drug. This proposal calls on the National Institute on Drug Abuse to find exactly what makes methamphetamine so very addictive--especially to our young people--and the best methods for beating the addiction. Finally, the bill calls for a joint strategic plan and national conference involving local, State and Federal law enforcement, education, health and elected officials to discuss solutions to stop the spread and use of this deadly drug. Mr. President, I believe that we have a window of opportunity as a nation to take a stand right now to defeat this scourge. Every day, meth infiltrates our city streets and rural towns, leading more and more people down a path of personal destruction. Families are being devastated and communities are fighting an uphill battle against this powerful drug. The time is now to make a stand to protect our communities and schools by passing this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning Methamphetamine reduction legislation the Senator from the State of New Mexico and I are introducing today. Methamphetamine is fast becoming a leading illegal drug in our Nation. From quiet suburbs, to city streets, to the corn rows of Iowa, meth destroys thousands of lives and families every year. This highly addictive drug is reaching epidemic proportions as it sweeps from the west coast, ravages the Midwest, and begins to touch the East. To illustrate the violence it elicits in people, methamphetamine is cited as a contributing factor in 80 percent of domestic violence cases in Iowa and a leading factor in a majority of violent crimes committed in the State. In 1996, I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Methamphetamine Control Act, which has done some good. However, in talking to local enforcement and concerned citizens across Iowa and the Midwest, its obvious that the methamphetamine problem has exploded beyond anything we envisioned in 1996. The number of meth arrests, court cases, and confiscation on labs continues to escalate. In the Midwest alone, the number of clandestine meth labs confiscated and destroyed for 1998 is five times the number confiscated and destroyed in 1997. The cost of cleanup for each lab ranges from $5,000 to $90,000 and creates a toxic trap to law enforcement officers and children who find them. Mr. President, the Midwest is not alone in this battle. The impact of this epidemic has reached the West and Southwest, including the state of New Mexico. In Albuquerque alone, law enforcement has seized four times as much meth last year as they did in the previous year, and they have identified and shut down twice as many meth labs as they had in the previous year. New Mexico has also seen an increase in meth trafficking on the New Mexico-Mexico border, as have the States of Arizona and California. The problem has spread to the rural communities and my colleague, Senator Bingaman, is concerned that the cheap cost of meth will threaten America's youth with yet another life-threatening drug. That's why today, Senator Bingaman and I are introducing the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse Reduction Act of 1999. Senators Murray and Johnson are cosponsoring this measure. A similar bill is being introduced in the House by Congressman Boswell. This legislation takes a comprehensive, common sense approach in battling this growing epidemic. It calls for an increase in resources to law enforcement working through the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program and establishes swift and certain penalties for those producing and peddling meth. It also reauthorizes and expands drug courts to help nonviolent drug abusers rid themselves of an addiction that leads them to other crimes. Our legislation expands school and community-based prevention efforts at the local level--targeting those areas that need it the most. That includes funding to allow students to develop their own anti-meth education programs to teach their school peers about the destructive effects of this drug. This proposal calls on the National Institute on Drug Abuse to find exactly what makes methamphetamine so very addictive--especially to our young people--and the best methods for beating the addiction. Finally, the bill calls for a joint strategic plan and national conference involving local, State and Federal law enforcement, education, health and elected officials to discuss solutions to stop the spread and use of this deadly drug. Mr. President, I believe that we have a window of opportunity as a nation to take a stand right now to defeat this scourge. Every day, meth infiltrates our city streets and rural towns, leading more and more people down a path of personal destruction. Families are being devastated and communities are fighting an uphill battle against this powerful drug. The time is now to make a stand to protect our communities and schools by passing this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators on this side, I will have to object.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. And they are up to the hundreds of millions of dollars. You entrust these airplanes to the pilots that are in their twenties. Sometimes I look at these pilots and think: Was I ever that young when I was flying an airplane? And these young men and women take extraordinary risks every day we send them off those catapults and a lot of times into dangerous situations. We just have to keep that in mind. The Senator is right. We can build the best aircraft, and we do, and they are highly sophisticated now, but unless you have that trained individual, who is not only trained but dedicated and wants to stay there, you are lacking something. That machine does not mean a darned thing. So that is why this bill is so important. Again, I compliment the chairman for taking this and really pushing it through. There is one thing, I say to my friend from Virginia, that came to my mind a couple of years ago. I am on the Defense Appropriations Committee, I am not on the authorizing committee, but it came to my attention here 2 or 3 years ago when I got on this issue of military people being on food stamps. It is just something about which I had not thought. It never occurred to me. It never hit me. I am on the Ag Committee, and of course I have been involved in the Food Stamp Program, and it is a good program. The Senator in the chair has been a strong supporter of the Food Stamp Program too, in the past. It is a good thing. But it just hit me as wrong. There is something wrong when our people in uniform qualify for food stamps. For some reason that just did not seem right to me. So I started a process of looking at it and writing letters to the Department of Defense, trying to get as much information as I could on this. Senator Domenici and I put some language in a bill once to get some data on this, as much as we could. We got bits and pieces of it, but we never really got all the information we needed. But we did find out that there were literally thousands of military personnel who, today, are on food stamps and who also get the WIC Program, the Women, Infants and Children Program, because they fall below that level. Again, to the chairman's great foresight, he did address this in this bill.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I want to most sincerely compliment the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for bringing this bill to the floor so expeditiously. The pay structure of the military needs to be addressed. We are losing too many good people. Last summer I happened to find myself up in Iceland, talking to some of the pilots up there who are performing pretty hazardous flying duty. I remember I met in the Oak Club with a bunch of them. They were pilots, highly trained--maybe they had been in 7 or 8 years--and now they are getting out. A lot of them wanted to stay but simply because of the families they had, the pay just wasn't there. We just cannot afford to keep losing that many good people out of the military. So this bill is long overdue, but it is welcome relief for a lot of our military families. I think it will go a long way toward retaining a lot of our qualified people. I know it is 4.8 percent. Frankly, if it was 5 percent, I would vote for it. If it was 6 percent, I would support it. I know we have budgetary constraints, but with a volunteer force like we have, and with some of the duty these people have to pull now in faraway places for a long period of time, not knowing what is around the corner, we have kind of a different situation than it was when the two of us were in the military some years ago. I think this is a good shot. It is needed right now. I know the chairman well. I know he feels very deeply about this and about the pay of our armed services personnel. But I hope we have an ongoing process to continue to look at this so we do not have these big gaps and lags in time when we lose a lot of our people. To whatever extent I can be helpful, I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman in this regard as we move ahead.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct. And especially now. In my time, I thought it was just overwhelming when I was flying a plane that cost $1 million.