Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to my friend from Minnesota without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Secondly, Madam President, I learned this morning of a poll that had been taken, and the poll has just been released. I believe it was released at 2:30 this afternoon, so the paper is still hot, just off the press. It is quite a startling poll when you look at the results. I am going to talk about that. The poll was prepared by Rockwood Research, a subsidiary of Farm Journal, Inc. It was prepared for the Nebraska Wheat Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association, and the Nebraska Farmers Union. I just want to say what the method was here. The method was that representative data was drawn from 1,000 wheat and corn growers throughout the United States. They have here a table of how many were contacted in each State. For example, in the State of Illinois, 55 corn growers and 33 wheat growers, for a total of 88, were contacted; in Idaho, 1 corn grower, 12 wheat growers, a total of 13; in Iowa, 72 corn growers, no wheat growers; in Kansas, 9 corn growers, 72 wheat growers, et cetera. All over the United States, from every State, from Alabama to Wyoming, farmers were contacted on this poll--500 corn growers and 500 wheat growers, calls made randomly. I will not go through all the questions, but I would like to highlight just a couple. Question No. 7: ``Congress should modify the current farm program?'' Yes or no. Seventy-six point nine percent said yes, 17.7 percent said no. Question No. 8: ``Congress should lift loan caps and raise loan rates 59 cents per bushel on wheat and 32 cents on corn.'' That is what is in the package of amendments in the Chamber right now. And 72.5 said yes, 19.4 percent said no. Overwhelming, 3 to 1--actually over 3 to 1--said that we have to raise the loan rates, we have to modify the farm program, and we ought to lift the caps. There are a couple of other findings in this poll, one here that I found very illuminating. Question No. 13: ``A farm program should retain planting flexibility and include a farmer-owned and farmer- controlled grain reserve?'' Eighty-five point nine percent, yes; 9.9 percent, no. Think about it. Planting flexibility with a farmer-owned and farmer-controlled grain reserve--almost 86 percent of the farmers polled said yes. There is no question about that. Well, that is what is in the package of amendments before us. We have planting flexibility, we provide standby authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide for storage payments to farmers, and then lifting the caps from the loan rates would give the farmer marketing flexibility, that ability to keep his own grain and market it as he wants to over the next several months. Eighty-six percent of those polled said yes, they were in favor of that. Madam President, I am going to put a copy of this poll on every Senator's desk, and I hope that each Senator will read this poll very carefully before a vote is taken on our package of amendments. I understand there is going to be a motion to table. I am just hopeful that every Senator will take a look at these poll results and see what the farmers are saying. This is not my poll. It is not a skewed poll. The poll was done by a reputable polling firm. One thousand farmers polled, random sampling. It is not even close--it is not even close-- about whether farmers want to raise the loan rates or not. It is overwhelmingly positive to get the loan rates raised and to provide for a farmer-owned reserve so that farmers can market their own grain. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the results of this poll in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his contribution not only to this debate but his contribution to overall agriculture legislation which he has worked on for so many years, first as a Member of the House and now the Senate. I know of his deep commitment to family farmers and to doing whatever we can this fall to stop the crisis in agriculture. I know it is hitting the State of South Dakota every bit as hard as it is hitting Iowa and other States in the Midwest. So I listened carefully to what the Senator from South Dakota had to say, and he is right on the mark. Madam President, we cannot really afford to dally around any longer. We have to take action, and we have to take action now, or it is going to cost us a lot more later on. There are two things I would like to have printed in the Record. One is a letter dated September 10 from Secretary of Agriculture Glickman supporting the package of amendments we are considering in the Chamber right now. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I heard some talk around here that some on the other side of the aisle are talking about coming up with a new program called lost market compensation payments, or something like that. So, as I understand it, it would just be a set rate of payments. They are going to come up with money and give it out to farmers like another AMTA payment. So what is the difference between that and taking the caps off the loan rates? A big difference. Keep in mind, if we have a direct payment, if you just give the money out to farmers this fall, and if the prices go up next year--which we all hope they do--the Government is out that money. If we have an increased loan rate and farmers can take that loan and pay their bills, and if the prices go up next year over 15 months--because that is what we put in the legislation, a 15- month loan--if, over the next 15 months, the prices go up, farmers can sell their grain, pay the loan back to the Government with interest, and, therefore, the Government would not necessarily be out all that money. The income protection is there, but if prices rise the Government will not bear as much cost. As I understand it the idea is to come up with this lost market compensation payment--it certainly sounds fancy to me--to pay out some amount of money regardless of what prices may do over the course of the marketing year. The loan rate approach is responsive to changes in market prices and the need for farm income protection. Again, keep in mind, if the money just goes out in direct AMTA-type payments and the price goes up next year, the Government is out that money. You do not get that money back. Second, if you make that direct payment to farmers, a lot of that direct payment will not go to farmers. Like the AMTA payment, it will go to landowners, it will go to landlords, and it may go to a number of people who will not even be farming next year. I heard that concern a lot in Iowa. In July we passed a bill to allow up-front payment of AMTA payments, we brought up next year's payment to this fall. There are going to be a number of cases where people who took that early AMTA payment are not around to be farming next year, and the person who is farming the land next year will get nothing. Lifting the caps from the marketing loan rates goes to benefit the farmer. It goes to that producer out there who really needs the income protection this fall and over the next 12 to 15 months. The next point to keep in mind, and the difference between raising the loan rates and the new AMTA-type payments, is that with increasing the loan rate, even though it is a marketing loan, we believe it will provide some price stability. It will help farmers conduct more orderly marketing of commodities and help to lessen the erosion of prices because farmers will not be under such pressure to sell. A direct payment out will not have this effect. And it will mean that farmers this fall without an adequate loan rate will have less of an opportunity to avoid just having to dump their grain on the market for whatever they get. So a marketing loan at a better level, particularly along with some storage payments, can head off a lot of problems. Without them we are likely to have more grain sitting on the siding, grain dumped on the ground and more of it rotting out there because we do not have the railcars to move it all at once. So any way you cut it, any way you want to look at it, lifting the loan rate caps makes sense. From the standpoint of how much we are asking the taxpayers to bear the burden, who is going to receive the help--whether it is farmers or landlords--and whether we are going to do something to stop the downward trend of prices, any way you look at it, removing the caps on loan rates and providing standby authority for storage payments is in our best interest. Finally, there are those who might say if you raise the loan rates, you are going to cut us out of foreign markets. What nonsense. Keep in mind that these are marketing loans we are addressing today. They do not price the U.S. out of markets. And, in any event, I have often wondered what good does it do if a farmer has to sell a bushel of grain for 10 cents a bushel because that is the only way to export the grain? By that reasoning we will drive all our farmers out of business. Taking the cap off of loan rates will help farmers stay in business to produce the grain we are going to need to be a reliable and adequate supplier for the world market, and it will help our farmers and not just those who may happen to own land. Madam President, we are, right now, on the verge of losing thousands and thousands more farmers, mainly young farmers, a lot of them who have a heavy debt load who are paying it off, trying to get a foothold in agriculture. They are smart. They are aggressive. They are good managers. But they are being driven out of agriculture by forces beyond their control. Now our efforts to improve the farm bill to help them seems blocked by an ideological devotion to every aspect of the present farm bill. I don't mind. I know people have ideologies and they believe certain things and they enact them into law. That is fine. It happens all the time. But at some point, practicality has to rule. However good the so-called Freedom to Farm was for the last couple of years because we had good export markets, it is not working now to address this crisis. If it is not working, change it. Are we so rigid, are we so cast in stone that because we passed a bill a couple of years ago we can't do anything about that? Yes, we can. The farm bill is not the Ten Commandments. Improving it doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It just requires 51 votes; that is all, just 51 votes. As I said earlier, when you look at those poll results, when you see more than a three-to-one ratio of farmers saying we ought to raise the loan rates, then you know that we ought to be doing it to help them survive this crisis. Madam President, over the weekend, farmers, bankers and others with real knowledge of the farm economic situation told me that by next February, March, and April, we will likely have many farmers in this country going to the banks to get their loans for planting and being told by the bankers who look at their balance sheets, ``I am sorry, you simply do not qualify.'' I also point out that we have a lot of farmers with Government-backed loans who are making it now; they are farming. But what is going to happen next spring if they can't make it and they can't get the money to put in another crop? What is going to happen to all the Government- backed loans that we have out to farmers? Again, we have to act, and we have to act soon. We cannot wait until next February, March, or April. It will be too late. The one thing I heard loudly and clearly this weekend in my State of Iowa was that if Congress doesn't do something before we adjourn, we might as well not do anything at all next year. That came through loudly and clearly. Another message that came through loudly and clearly is that we don't need another direct payment going out in a lump sum because the benefit of those payments flows so heavily to landowners, and the farmer got precious little. I had a number of farmers tell me this weekend that some of those advanced payments that we gave, or are sending out this fall, a number of those people getting those payments won't even be farming next year--won't even be farming. So we are giving them a farm payment that would have gone next year to farmers, and they are not even farming, but they are going to get the payment this fall. That doesn't sound like a very wise policy to me. The wisest thing for us to do is what has proven to be effective and what farmers know is effective and the poll results show: Lift the caps on marketing loan rates, extend the period to 15 months, provide the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to make storage payments and increase the amount of indemnity payments we are going to make. The amount we passed in July is not sufficient. Do those things, and then we can really help farm families to survive, we can save our economy, and remain competitive in world markets. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield without losing my right to the floor. I obviously yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. HARKIN. I respond to the Senator from Minnesota to say I agree with him absolutely, there is a convulsion going on in agriculture today. We are spiraling into a deepening crisis in agriculture all over America, especially in the Midwest. Yes, this issue is of vital importance to farm families and people in rural areas all over America. I do believe we have to take some time to lay out the case and to lay out the facts of what is happening in agriculture today. My colleague from Minnesota, I know, will do that today. My colleague from North Dakota, and others, I am sure, will want to come on the floor. The Senator from Minnesota is right, it is a Monday. People were told there would be a first vote today at 5:30. So I assume a lot of Senators are now returning to Washington, such as the case with the minority leader, Senator Daschle. I hope, since we are taking some time this afternoon--let's be honest about it, there is not much happening on the floor of the Senate today. I don't see anybody lined up with amendments. So we are taking this time to talk about and discuss the parameters of the problem in agriculture and to lay down our amendment, of course. But I hope that we will at least have some time beyond 5 or 5:30 this evening, maybe even tomorrow, to have some further discussion on the crisis in agriculture. The Senator from Minnesota I think is absolutely right. I am sure there are a lot of Senators who would like to say something about this and to maybe add their thoughts, their views, their perceptions, their support. Or perhaps there are those who don't want to support doing anything at all but to just let it go, and they have a right to speak here, too, and they should be heard also. I am hopeful that, as the Senator from Minnesota has pointed out, the floor manager of the bill and the majority leader of the Senate will at least afford us some valuable opportunity for other Senators to come in and speak on this bill after their return to the Senate Chamber.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. HARKIN. It is a bad piece of legislation, and not just for working people, but for every American, for the Bill of Rights, and for our constitutional rights to be free to think and have our own consciences, this bill ought to be stopped in its tracks. I thank the Senator for yielding the time.

Mr. HARKIN. I wish we had more time. We will debate this later.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to my friend from Arkansas. I read the language of his bill. The words are, ``for the purpose of furthering another employment or agency status.'' It doesn't say for the purpose of destroying the company. Yet that is what he is talking about. What is wrong with the purpose, for example, of helping to form a union? There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong for women, for example, wanting to organize to have a day care center, or minorities wanting to organize to have a day off. That is an agency. The words don't say for the purpose of destroying a company. That is the Senator's own thought process. Furthermore, the Senator from Arkansas's argument is faulty in that he claims this ``salting'' activity is carried out to specifically cripple economic viability of a business. However, I ask, what person would destroy the very business, the very thing, their job and living is dependent upon? So it seems the Senator's argument is counter productive.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 30 more seconds.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I am sorry I could not have been here earlier to speak against this onerous piece of legislation. The so-called ``truth'' in employment act? It ought to be called the ``fear'' in employment act. Of all the requirements that a person has to go through to get employment, the last thing you ought to worry about is your personal beliefs or what you think. How is an employer going to find this out? Are we now going to start administering ``truth tests'' to people who seek employment? Are we going to give them an injection of sodium pentothal so they have to tell the truth? Are we going to put them under hypnosis to open their minds? This is probably one of the most far-reaching, invasive pieces of legislation that goes at the very heart of the Bill of Rights. The freedom of thought--to make sure that people can't force you, either in a court or anywhere else, to testify against your will, testify against yourself, or to force you to tell what you think is fundamental to our liberty. Yet, this bill amends this principle. This legislation would implement a unprecedented chilling effect on employment practices in this country. I was listening to the Senator, my friend from Arkansas, talk about this. Employers already have the ability to fire workers who neglect their job duties. In fact, under the Hess Mechanical case, they will get attorney's fees for anybody who neglects their job duties and are dismissed, if they file a countersuit in court, for example. So the more I look at this bill, I have to admit that this is really what I would call--and I listened to the Senator from Massachusetts earlier, listing all of the assaults that have been made on workers' rights since the Republicans have taken charge around here. This bill is just another bill on the Republican donors' wish list. That is all this is; it is nothing more than that. But beyond that, it is a terribly invasive piece of legislation. Employers already have more power to tip the scales. If we really want to level the scales between employers and employees, we ought to do away with the Striker Replacement Act. We ought to make it so they can't replace striking workers. That would even and balance the scales. But this piece of legislation here, which says an employer can delve into the thoughts of a person--my gosh, how far are we going to go in this country? Lastly, when it uses the words ``for the purpose of furthering another employment or agency status,'' what does that mean? Does that include, for example, women who come to work and organize to start a day care center? How about racial minorities who may want to organize or petition for a day off to observe Martin Luther King's birthday? That presumably would be covered under agency status. There is no definition of ``agency status.'' I understand what employment status is, but agency status is a broad net that would capture everything-- potentially usurping our fundamental freedoms to organize and participate in important causes. The Senator from Massachusetts has laid out quite eloquently the reasons why this legislation ought to be stopped in its tracks and why we ought to stick up for not just the working people in this country, but for the Bill of Rights and the right of people to think freely and to act freely in accordance with the law. There was a Supreme Court case 2 years ago, the Town and Country case, with a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court ruled that an employees affiliation with a labor union or other group cannot affect their employment eligibility. That is what they are trying to overturn here, the Town and Country case. It says that it doesn't make any difference what you think, as long as you are doing your job. If you want to do something outside of the job that is lawful and legal, employers cannot require you to disavow yourself of your right to participate in that activity, whether it be organizing a union or petitioning for workplace child-care centers. I think that is an excellent decision, a unanimous decision. We don't get that many anymore. Yet, this legislation seeks to overturn that Supreme Court decision.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I don't know what the definition of bona fide employee is. I am reading section 4 of the bill. It says: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant, in that such person seeks or has sought employment with the employer with the primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency status. It doesn't say for the primary purpose of destroying the company. That is not it at all.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President. A poll came out today of 1,000 farmers taken nationwide by a polling firm. It was done for the Nebraska Wheat Growers, American Corn Growers and the Nebraska Farmers Union--1,000 farmers. Two questions I will point out: One, Congress should modify the current farm program. Yes, 76.9 percent; no, 17 percent. Congress should lift loan caps and raise loan rates 59 cents per bushel on wheat and 32 cents on corn. Yes, 72.5 percent; no, 19.4 percent. Over 3 to 1. Farmers recognize this is the best way to proceed rather than getting a direct payment. Keep in mind, if we raise the loan rates, it gives the farmer a marketing tool. The farmer can get the loan and hold on to the crop. If prices go up next year, the farmer can sell that crop and then pay the loan back to the Government with interest. If, however, we are just going to get a bunch of money and send it out to farmers in a payment, there is no chance that any of that money is ever going to come back to the Government. Keep in mind, these loans have interest charges, and if farmers pay those loans back, they pay them back with interest. Secondly, if we make a payment to farmers this fall, as I hear some people want to do, just one big lump sum, just a check that goes out, a lot of those people getting that money will not be in farming next year, and it won't go to the producers.

Mr. HARKIN. If the loan rates go up, the loan rates increase, it goes to producers; it gives them a marketing tool whereby they can take the grain and market when they want and not just dump it all out there this fall. That is why we have to remove the loan caps that are in the farm bill of 1996. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 30 seconds.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is going to save a lot of farmers and do it in a cost-effective manner and a manner that is sound financially. It looks as though we are going to come down on one or two courses here. We either are going to raise the caps on loans and provide a loan rate increase to farmers, or we are going to have some kind of direct payment to farmers. I hear rumbling around that there is going to be a big, massive multibillion-dollar check to go out to farmers this year. I said earlier there is a poll released today of 1,000 farmers--Mr. President, may we have order? I can't even hear myself think.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator could yield me some time. I do not know what the situation is on the floor right now.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, farmers continue to suffer huge losses through absolutely no fault of their own. No other business has less control of the price they can receive for what they produce, the cost of the inputs. Farmers cannot control the weather. They cannot control the world economy. They cannot control what is happening in Asia. But those factors do determine the price of corn, soybeans, wheat, and other commodities. The Freedom to Farm bill passed in 1996 sharply reduced the farmer's safety net to take care of those contingencies over which the farmer has no control. Now farm prices are crashing to levels not seen in decades. Many farmers are going to have a difficult time acquiring funds needed to pay their bills this year and to get the necessary money to get the fields prepared and to get the seed and the fertilizer to get the crops in the ground for next year. Many farmers could lose their farms that have been in their families for generations. I recently talked with an older farmer who said, ``That's my life's savings. I made it through the eighties. I'm a good manager. I weathered that terrible storm in the eighties. And now this may wipe me out after a lifetime of work.'' I am sure the Senator from Alabama knows. He has a lot of farmers in his State. There is the old adage that farmers live poor and die rich. They have all that money in that land. That is their retirement system. They work hard all of their lives. They do not live high on the hog. Then it comes time to retire. That is their equity. And now that is being severely eroded, not to mention the young farmers who have gotten started, carrying a debtload who will be really forced out of agriculture, never to return. Well, it is already having a terrible ripple effect, not only on farms but in small towns and communities all over America. Layoffs are starting to occur at agricultural equipment manufacturing companies and in stores. I think we are just beginning to see the stages of what could become a very severe downturn in rural America. Last week, a number of Senators and I proposed a series of modifications in ag programs to help alleviate the problem. But I take the floor this morning to say that I believe Congress should also pass a provision broadening existing tax law that will allow farmers to recover taxes paid in the past to cover their net operating losses right now. Mr. President, under existing law, businesses, including farmers, can be reimbursed for their business losses by receiving a rebate for taxes paid in the prior 2 years--or 3 years in cases in which there is a natural disaster. Well, we are facing a large economic disaster that can really sink us in rural America. What I am proposing--and I will be shortly introducing a bill to do so--I propose that family farmers be allowed the option to get a rebate from the taxes that they paid over the past 10 years, covering up to $200,000 in operating losses rather than the 2 years that is allowed under current law. Many farmers cannot receive a rebate for their operating losses because they were not able to make any taxable profits in the last couple of years. By being able to go back 10 years, we will allow these farmers to be able to get a rebate next year and then limit it to $200,000 so it would be available to all family farms, up to a limit of $200,000 in net operating losses. The benefit would only go to farmers whose families are actively engaged in farming and whose business activity is mostly farming. The amount of the rebate would be dependent on the amount of the loss and the tax rate paid by farmers for the paid taxes that are being restored. The provision I am proposing would cover losses occurring in both 1998 or 1999. If passed this year, farmers would be able to calculate their losses early next year and receive a rebate from the IRS for the taxes paid in earlier years very soon thereafter. This proposal would provide a significant amount of relief when it is needed early next year. It would help many farmers acquire the funds they need, as I said, to get the fields prepared and get the feed and fertilizer and bills paid so they can continue on next year. I might add that there is some precedent for this. There was a case in 1997 where Amtrak was allowed to use net operating losses of their predecessor railroads going back over 20 years in the past. So there is precedent for this. If we can do it for Amtrak, I think certainly we ought to be able to do it for our family farmers. I am hopeful at some point this fall either under a tax bill, if we are going to have one, or under some other vehicle, that we can at least put this provision in. I know my colleague from Iowa has another provision that would allow farmers to invest some of their profits for up to 5 years without being taxed until the money is used in poorer years, which is a great provision, one I also hope gets through. Right now, the farmers are facing the fact that they don't have any money. I think maybe the two coupled together will get them some funds. If they went ahead and invested and used a provision of my colleague from Iowa, we might have a situation to help get some of the farmers through the next couple of years. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of Senators. I hope to be introducing that very shortly. Again, I don't mean to belabor it, but we are seeing really bad times out there. I used these charts last week. I will use them again in case other Senators may be watching that didn't watch last week. Since July 16, wheat, corn, and soybeans are all down--I used central Illinois only as a measuring point--21 percent decline in the past 6 weeks in corn, 21 percent decline in soybeans in the last 6 weeks, and a 13 percent decline in the past 6 weeks in hard red winter wheat in Kansas City. We see no signs this will be alleviated any time soon. It looks like we will have a record crop of soybeans this year, a record crop, and probably the second or third largest corn crop we have ever had. So this will be hanging over the marketplace. We need to do everything we can. Again, I hope that we will have some provisions very soon that will remove the caps on the loan rates and even provide emergency provisions for the Secretary to be able to pay storage payments to farmers, to store some of that grain so that they don't have to dump it this fall. They can keep it until next year. Maybe the Asian economy will come back; maybe there won't be very good weather next year, whatever; maybe the prices will come back next year. Let the farmer have the freedom to market that grain at some point down the line rather than just dumping it on the market this year. There are other provisions that we will be talking about, but I think those are the major ones that will help get us through a very, very difficult year in agriculture and all over the world. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. This Act will enable States and the Federal Government to build on their work under the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, or Tech Act, which sunsets this year, and to establish new directions in assistive technology policy for the 21st Century. In 1988, I was proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of the Tech Act, and was very fortunate to work with then-Representative Jeffords, who was the chief House sponsor. In developing this new Act, I have been fortunate to work with Senator Jeffords again, and also with Senator Bond, whose commitment and leadership have been invaluable. The issue of assistive technology is deeply important to me. My brother Frank is deaf. Assistive technology is part of our relationship. Frank and I talk all the time, using a TDD; we watch television together using a closed-caption decoder. My nephew Kelly was injured in the Navy and is a quadriplegic. But he lives independently, in large part because of assistive technology. For example, Kelly is able to drive his van by using a wheelchair lift and hand controls. But assistive technology doesn't just work for people with disabilities. We hear all the time that defense research often has everyday applications. The same is true of assistive technology research. I saw a television commercial recently, advertising voice- activated software for business executives. Well, that technology was originally development for people whose disability kept them from using a keyboard. And if you've ever watched the closed-captioned news in a noisy restaurant or so you didn't wake up your husband or wife, you've used assistive technology. The more assistive technology we develop, the more all of us will benefit from it. Under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, States will be able to continue the consumer-responsive programs of technology-related assistance for people with disabilities they have developed over the past ten years. The Act will help States establish and strengthen systems to inform people with disabilities what their assistive technology options are, so they can take advantage of them. It will enable States to help schools and employers accommodate assistive technology users, so they can live independently, and get an education and a job. And the Act will create a one-stop Internet site where consumers, family members, assistive technology professionals, and anyone else who's interested can access all the information there is about assistive technology. The Act also recognizes that the Federal government must work more efficiently, and with the private sector, if we are going to make assistive technology more accessible. It requires federal agencies and offices that conduct assistive technology research to work more closely together, to take advantage of each other's abilities and information and to better utilize federal resources. It enables the Federal government to increase its research, and to make grants to outside researchers, for assistive technology and universal design. It offers help to small businesses to research, develop, and bring assistive technology to the market. And the Act enables the Federal government to work with the information technology industry, to increase the industry's voluntary participation in efforts to make information technology more accessible to people with disabilities. Finally, the Act will help States establish, or expand, loan programs for people with disabilities or their representatives to access to meet their assistive technology needs. I have often said that disability is a natural part of the human experience, that in no way diminishes the right of individuals to live independently, enjoy self-determination, pursue meaningful careers and enjoy full inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of American society. Assistive technology enables people with disabilities to exercise that right. There have been amazing changes in technology since we wrote the Tech Act, ten years ago. Technology can do more for more people than ever before--and that trend is going to continue. But that also means the consequences are greater than ever if we don't make assistive technology, information technology, and our society generally, more accessible, because the more technology can do, the further people with disabilities will fall behind if they can't use it. Mr. President, this Act enjoys broad support in the disability community and the assistive technology community, and is endorsed by the National Governors Association. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Jeffords, Bond, and me, and our other cosponsors, in supporting this worthwhile Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. This Act will enable States and the Federal Government to build on their work under the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, or Tech Act, which sunsets this year, and to establish new directions in assistive technology policy for the 21st Century. In 1988, I was proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of the Tech Act, and was very fortunate to work with then-Representative Jeffords, who was the chief House sponsor. In developing this new Act, I have been fortunate to work with Senator Jeffords again, and also with Senator Bond, whose commitment and leadership have been invaluable. The issue of assistive technology is deeply important to me. My brother Frank is deaf. Assistive technology is part of our relationship. Frank and I talk all the time, using a TDD; we watch television together using a closed-caption decoder. My nephew Kelly was injured in the Navy and is a quadriplegic. But he lives independently, in large part because of assistive technology. For example, Kelly is able to drive his van by using a wheelchair lift and hand controls. But assistive technology doesn't just work for people with disabilities. We hear all the time that defense research often has everyday applications. The same is true of assistive technology research. I saw a television commercial recently, advertising voice- activated software for business executives. Well, that technology was originally development for people whose disability kept them from using a keyboard. And if you've ever watched the closed-captioned news in a noisy restaurant or so you didn't wake up your husband or wife, you've used assistive technology. The more assistive technology we develop, the more all of us will benefit from it. Under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, States will be able to continue the consumer-responsive programs of technology-related assistance for people with disabilities they have developed over the past ten years. The Act will help States establish and strengthen systems to inform people with disabilities what their assistive technology options are, so they can take advantage of them. It will enable States to help schools and employers accommodate assistive technology users, so they can live independently, and get an education and a job. And the Act will create a one-stop Internet site where consumers, family members, assistive technology professionals, and anyone else who's interested can access all the information there is about assistive technology. The Act also recognizes that the Federal government must work more efficiently, and with the private sector, if we are going to make assistive technology more accessible. It requires federal agencies and offices that conduct assistive technology research to work more closely together, to take advantage of each other's abilities and information and to better utilize federal resources. It enables the Federal government to increase its research, and to make grants to outside researchers, for assistive technology and universal design. It offers help to small businesses to research, develop, and bring assistive technology to the market. And the Act enables the Federal government to work with the information technology industry, to increase the industry's voluntary participation in efforts to make information technology more accessible to people with disabilities. Finally, the Act will help States establish, or expand, loan programs for people with disabilities or their representatives to access to meet their assistive technology needs. I have often said that disability is a natural part of the human experience, that in no way diminishes the right of individuals to live independently, enjoy self-determination, pursue meaningful careers and enjoy full inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of American society. Assistive technology enables people with disabilities to exercise that right. There have been amazing changes in technology since we wrote the Tech Act, ten years ago. Technology can do more for more people than ever before--and that trend is going to continue. But that also means the consequences are greater than ever if we don't make assistive technology, information technology, and our society generally, more accessible, because the more technology can do, the further people with disabilities will fall behind if they can't use it. Mr. President, this Act enjoys broad support in the disability community and the assistive technology community, and is endorsed by the National Governors Association. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Jeffords, Bond, and me, and our other cosponsors, in supporting this worthwhile Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to share some of my reasons for voting in favor of the Specter-Biden amendment that restored the Comprehensive Test Ban ``prepcom'' funding. I strongly supported the Specter-Biden amendment to restore the $28 million for the U.S. share of an international network to monitor nuclear weapons testing. The international monitoring network will support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that bans all nuclear weapons explosive tests. This treaty will help our nation's nuclear non-proliferation goals by helping to stem the development of new nuclear weapons. The treaty, which awaits ratification in the U.S. Senate, has the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former JCS Chairman General Colin Powell, and the vast majority of the American public. Not only would the nuclear testing monitoring network help the U.S. as we move toward a nuclear weapons ban, it would also prove useful to our national security even without a global testing ban. As I have stated repeatedly on the floor, I am a strong supporter of a nuclear weapons test ban or C-T-B-T. However, even my colleagues that have not decided to support the treaty should support the international monitoring system on its own merits. Why shouldn't we enhance our nation's and our allies ability to detect nuclear weapons tests? The network would establish monitoring stations in places like the former Soviet Union, China, South Asia and Africa, greatly enhancing our capability to detect nuclear tests. The CTBT's monitoring system is not fully operational. Nevertheless, even in its current and incomplete form, the system provided timely data on events at the respective nuclear test sites. Through the CTBT Prepcom, we will add monitoring stations in Pakistan, China, Kazakhstan, Diego Garcia, and elsewhere. We saw the benefits of international monitoring in the seismic event in the Kara Sea off of Russia. Six international monitoring stations detected this event on August 16, 1996 in the Kara Sea near the Russian test site. The data from these stations allowed our intelligence community to conclude that the event was not nuclear, not associated with Novaya Zemlya activities, but rather, was an earthquake 130 kilometers southeast of the Novaya Zemlya test site. In another recent example, the seismic stations in the CTBT Prepcom almost immediately detected the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests, enabling the U.S. to identify the location and yield of the tests with high accuracy. This is clearly a success for the emerging CTBT detection system. Some may ask why the U.S. should fund an international system? Why can't we just go it alone. A key answer is money. The U.S. paying for only 25% of the cost is better than footing the bill for the whole system. For example, the Air Force originally planned on paying for the entire cost of monitoring stations in Kazakhstan and South Korea. Instead, we will only pay for 25% of the costs of these stations. In summary, I think there are many good reasons to support a nuclear weapons test ban. However, even if one has not yet decided to support the treaty, the funding of an international monitoring system is reasonable on its own and I am gratified to see that the majority of my Senate colleagues voted in favor of the Specter-Biden amendment. amendments nos. 3536 through 3538, en bloc