Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know a lot of us were out in our States during the August recess. I was too. I had a series of meetings around the State with farm families and people in small towns and communities and rural areas. Quite frankly, what I found was more than just disturbing. What I found was that there is a looming crisis in agriculture and in our farm economy. For some time I and a number of my colleagues have been trying to call attention in this body to the very serious situation in the farm economy. The livelihood and the life savings of hundreds of thousands of farm families are in jeopardy. The economic underpinnings of many rural communities are also at stake. In mid-July, the entire Senate went on record noting the existence of the serious farm economic problems and calling for immediate action. But later on, just before we broke for the August recess, this Senate rejected an amendment that Senator Daschle and I offered to restore farming protection that was taken out in the 1996 farm bill. All we wanted to do in a very modest attempt was to take off the caps that were put on the loan rates in the 1996 farm bill. We did not in any way want to attempt at that point to change the farm bill. We just simply wanted to remove the caps. The loan rates were still there. They were just capped at the 1996 level. All we wanted to do was remove those. As I listened to the debate on that amendment, it seemed clear to me that many of my colleagues doubted the seriousness of the problems in the farm economy. I heard statements that if we just let the market work, if exports would just get back on track, the situation would turn around, or so the argument went. So, I went out to my State to have some meetings in August to sort of take the temperature and gauge just how serious the situation was. In the intervening time since we left here, the situation has become, I am sad to say, far worse. The bottom literally has dropped out of commodity prices. I point out that the falling commodity prices cover both livestock and crops. Often, at least in my State, if the commodity price of a crop was low, the livestock prices might be up a little bit, and the farmer would at least have something to sell to make some money. Now all of the major commodities--corn, soybeans, pork, and beef--are all deeply in the red. So at this point I don't see how there can be any doubt that we have an economic disaster in the farm sector. I have some charts that will show just what happened over the last 6 weeks since the Senate considered this amendment that Senator Daschle and I offered on July 17. Here are central Illinois, corn prices. Here is where they were when we debated the amendment. Here is where they are now--a 21 percent decline in 6 weeks in the corn prices. Here is central Illinois, soybean prices--again, a 21 percent decline in the past 6 weeks. Here is Kansas City, hard red winter wheat prices--down 13 percent in the past 6 weeks, and headed south. There is nothing to indicate that it is going to come up. Since July 16, the day the Senate passed its version of the agriculture appropriations bill, the following market prices declined: Dodge City, KS, wheat--down 20 percent; North central Iowa corn--down 26.1 percent; North central Iowa soybeans--down 20.7 percent; South Iowa and Minnesota hogs--down 11.5 percent; Billings, MT, feed barley--down 20 percent. That is just since the middle of July. Here are the charts that I used in July to show what was happening to commodity prices, going clear back to 1990. It sort of drifts along, and we had a big spike in here from 1994 up to 1996. Then, after the 1996 farm bill was passed, the prices have been coming down and coming down. This little red figure shows just what happened since we were here in July. I dare say if we do nothing, if we sit here and twiddle our thumbs and do nothing, that line will continue to go down during the fall months. That was corn. Here is the farm-level soybean price. Again, since the farm bill passed, the price has been coming down; now in the last 6 weeks, its down even more. Here is the wheat price. Again, it spiked up here about 1996, has been generally coming down the last 6 weeks--a precipitous drop in the price of wheat. Again, as I said, Mr. President, I don't think there can be doubt any longer that we have an economic disaster in the farm sector. In my State, corn prices have fallen to the levels of the farm crisis years of the 1980s, and they still remain under downward pressures. As I say, there is nothing indicating that it is going to pull these back up. The prices have fallen over 25 percent since mid-July and are about $1 a bushel below the cost of production. USDA's most recent estimation indicates that 1998 net farm income will be 20 percent lower than it was in 1996--about $42.5 billion. And it was about $53.3 billion in 1996. I could go on and on citing more discouraging figures. But it is obvious that the numbers tell the story. It is simply no longer possible to deny the severity of the problems in the farm economy. Those problems are already spilling over into rural economies and into our small towns and communities. If the situation continues, it will affect our entire national economy. Let me just, again, underscore the consequences if we do not act. If we do not act, we are going to lose thousands of farm families that we cannot afford to lose. Many of us here remember the 1980s farm crisis. I can just tell you that my State of Iowa can't bear to go through that again. Our Nation can't bear to go through that again. Farmers are, indeed, resourceful people. Farmers and farm families can handle a lot of adversity and survive in business and maintain their families on the farm. But when commodity prices fall the way they have recently, farmers are at the mercy of the market. If we do not have some actions to ameliorate the effects of these low commodity prices, we are going to see a lot of farm families forced out of business. They will be gone forever and often gone from their community entirely. By and large, they will not be able to return when the farm economy turns around. Farming is too capital intensive for that kind of in and out and in again type of approach. Basically, we are talking here a lot about younger farm families who have money borrowed and who do not have a lot of equity built up, who are the most vulnerable to severe downturns in the farm economy like we are now seeing. They are energetic, they are perhaps some of the most educated farmers we have ever had in America, but they often do not have the financial resources to hang on through the kind of long, serious economic downturn that we have now. These younger farmers are the ones we can least afford to lose; they are the future of agriculture and the future of our rural communities. As they are forced out of agriculture, food production becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and this is not a healthy trend for rural communities, consumers or our Nation as a whole. I just point out that in Russia, the former Soviet Union, they are breaking up these old, huge farms because they did not work. I don't think we want to go down that path of having larger and larger land holdings in this country. Now, I just focused my remarks on younger farmers and young farm families. I mentioned that, Mr. President, at one of my farm meetings in Iowa, and there were a number of older farmers there who jumped all over me and said, well, you are missing us. I said, yes, but I want to talk about the younger farmers and how they don't have a lot of equity. One of the older farmers shook his finger at me and said that is just my point. I have built up my equity in my farm. That is my retirement. I haven't made a lot of money. I am reminded of the old adage: Farmers live poor and die rich. They have a lot of land, they have a lot of equity built up, but they have never made a lot of money. He said that is my retirement, and I see it going away before my very eyes because of these low commodity prices, because of what is happening out there, because they are having to borrow now, because they are digging into their equity base just to stay afloat. So it is not just the younger farmers. I think it spreads across the whole spectrum. I also read in the newspaper a comment made by a certain politician, who will remain unnamed, who said basically if farmers are having trouble now, it is because they were simply not managing their farms correctly; they were bad managers. That is my own words, ``bad managers.'' Well, he mentioned this, and this was, of course, the topic of conversation at one of my farm meetings, and several of the farmers there pointed to the fact that they had survived the 1980s. And as they pointed out, any farmer that got through the 1980s is not a bad manager. If they could manage their debt loads and the low prices and the shakeout that we had in agriculture in the 1980s, they are pretty good managers. But now they can't handle this. Farm debt is now at the highest level it has been since 1985, and that was the beginning of the washout of a lot of farmers in the mid and late 1980s. We can all look to the causes, what causes all this. Well, I don't know that they are all that complicated. We have had good crop production conditions. We are going to have a bumper crop of soybeans this year, the largest production of soybeans this year. We are going to have a big crop of soybeans in my State, too. Corn may not have a record year, but may be the second largest record year. So we have a lot of supplies and a lot of farm commodities in the world market. At the same time, the demand has gotten weak for a number of reasons, not the least of which has been the economic downturn in Asia. I saw some figures--I don't have the charts for them. I will bring them up in the next couple of days--which showed our exports to Asia not off all that much in terms of quantity but in terms of price. What we are getting for what we are selling is way, way down. And so we have a very weak foreign market there. They don't have any money in Asia, and so a lot of our sales have eroded. Now, another aspect is the strength of the U.S. dollar versus the currencies of these other countries that compete with us to sell ag exports. The weakness of those currencies allows those other countries to gain a competitive advantage over us. Now, there isn't a farmer in my State that has any ability to control that. If these other currencies are weak and they can undercut us in selling their commodities to other countries, there is not a darned thing that one or ten or a thousand farmers in my State can do about it. But it is a fact and that is what is happening. So they have gained competitive advantage over us. In addition, farmers in several areas of the U.S. have suffered severe losses because of weather and crop disease problems. So while we have a bumper crop, we have places such as North Dakota and Texas where they have had tremendous drought problems and weather problems and they don't have a crop at all or they have crop disease problems. So you put all this together, and with total freedom to plant and then farmers have planted--in fact, I have heard more than one comment in my State about how much of the conserved land that we had in the past is now being planted, and that farmers are planting them more intensely. And again, if you understand ag economics, you understand that if you have a fixed base, fixed amount of land, you are going to try to get the most production out of that land, even if the prices fall. That is why I don't think there are a lot of people--I know a lot of people understand it. I know the Presiding Officer understands ag economics. But a lot of them think that a farmer is like General Motors, that if prices fall you can cut back production to meet the supply and demand situation. The farmer can't do that. One farmer is not General Motors. That one farmer has no control over the total supply and the total demand. Secondly, it is counterintuitive. You would think if prices would fall, for example, in corn, a corn farmer would say, well, if the prices are down, I am not going to plant corn; I will plant something else. We heard a lot of this during the debate on the farm bill. Well, quite frankly, what happens, if the price drops, the farmer looks at his fixed base and says, gee, you know, the marginal cost of planting an extra acre or 2 or 5 or 10 acres of corn is almost nothing, and maybe I can plant more intensively and I can get more out of that fixed unit that I have. And therefore, even if the prices drop, I will have more production out of that unit and that will cover the lower prices. Therefore, low prices don't lead to decreased production of crops. It, in fact, can lead to increased production of a crop. That is what we are seeing right now--simple, basic farm economics. And so you put all these forces together, and what we have is the disaster we are having right now. But again, keep in mind these are forces beyond the control of a farmer. The farmer is at the mercy of weather, at the mercy of world commodity surpluses, at the mercy of economic problems, and they are at the mercy of other foreign currencies and their values, all of which are things that conspire together to ruin our markets. It is because of these forces that are beyond the control of farmers that we in our country have traditionally had in place a system of farm income protection. Certainly, we want to let the market work, but we also recognize that when the market turns around, or when disaster strikes, or when things intervene to skew the market, that it should not wipe out farm families who have done everything within their power to produce and to meet the demands of the market. These farmers should not be forced out without any protection against events beyond their control. Again, a lot of people say, Why should we treat farmers differently than any other business? The reason we have always had these policies in place is because farming is not like any other business. As Neil Harl, the distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Iowa State University, has said repeatedly, farmers are not like General Motors. Farmers are uniquely vulnerable to forces over which they have no control. The 1996 farm bill greatly pared back protections against forces over which farmers have no control. The 1996 farm bill said to farmers: Produce all you can and export all you can. That is fine until foreign markets turn sour. That is fine until other countries' currencies are able to beat our own and they can get a competitive advantage over us because of the competitive value of their currencies. That is fine until other governments intervene, in terms of their support and their control of their own agricultural commodities. When foreign markets turn sour because of these events, like we are now seeing, the 1996 farm bill basically leaves American farmers to bear the brunt of these powerful world economic forces that are totally beyond their control. Basically, the 1996 farm bill put farmers on a high wire and then took away the safety net. Again, I will keep reminding my colleagues that under previous farm policies farmers got a lot more help in contending with those world economic forces beyond their control. There were deficiency payments that compensated for low prices. There was the Farmer Owned Reserve which paid farmers to pull grain off of the market in times of surpluses. There were not artificially low caps on commodity loan rates. There were paid land diversions and acreage limitations to keep production in line with demand. So there were all kinds of policies in place to help farmers weather these powerful economic forces over which they have no control. But the 1996 farm bill took that all away. Now, again, we have to ask ourselves, are we so ideologically rigidly attached to the 1996 farm bill that our hands are so tied that we cannot respond to these low farm prices and to the disaster that is facing us in rural America? Ideology is fine, but let's be practical about it. Let's use some common sense here. I do not mind if people have an ideology they want to pursue. That is fine. I think there is a lot of ideology in the 1996 farm bill. Those who had that ideology won the votes, won the bill and got it through. But, as President Clinton said when he signed the bill into law, that it is seriously flawed because there is not an adequate safety net there to help farmers through these kind of times that we will see in the future. I think what we need is to set our ideology aside and come together here to recognize that we have a disastrous farm economy out there right now. I might also say to my colleagues and friends who want to see the 1996 farm bill continue, that if we do not take some modest steps now to make some minor fixes in the 1996 farm bill, then there will be mounting pressure to make drastic changes in farm policy. In other words, if we do not get ahead of the curve, then we may have to take very dramatic steps, and those steps could go back to something even previous to the 1996 farm bill. So all I am saying is that there is no reason to keep the loan rates capped. We ought to take the caps off of loan rates. I also believe that we need to put into place, at least over the next couple or 3 years, just for this year, a form of a Farmer Owned Reserve where, as we have in the past, we actually paid farmers some up-front money to store their grain and then the farmer can decide when to market that grain. I call it giving the farmers more freedom to market. Right now, farmers have freedom to plant, under the 1996 farm bill. But, because of the 1996 farm bill, they are forced to market their grain at the lowest possible prices. That is inherently unfair. Let's give the farmer some more freedom to market, and that means giving the farmer the ability to store the grain, either on the farm or in local elevators or the warehouse, and then be able to market that grain over the next couple or 3 years, when, we hope, prices will recover. If we do fund the International Monetary Fund and they can straighten out the Asian economy, it is likely that the Asian economy can rebound in the next 12 to 15 months. That would put upward pressure on our grain prices. The problem is the farmers won't have the grain then. But if we had some system where the farmer could store that, as he could in the past under the Farmer Owned Reserve, then the farmer could market that grain at the higher prices in the future. I think those two items, taking off the loan rate caps and giving the farmers the ability to store their grain and to market it when they want to rather than dumping it on the market this fall, are the two things that we could do to save the 1996 farm bill. They are modest steps. They don't take away planting flexibility. They don't take away all of the abilities that we gave the farmers. It does not reinstitute any kind of set-asides or Government mandates on what a farmer has to plant or where they have to plant. All that would stay in place. Those were the good features of the 1996 farm bill. But, what we need to do in order to save those, I believe, is to take a couple of these modest steps. If we do not do that, we are going to see a lot of grain dumped on the market this fall. We are going to see these prices go down even further, and we will have a full-blown depression in rural America. It is almost there right now. It is almost there. We are on the brink of it in rural America. Many farmers basically see this as their last year if we do not do something. So, again, I take this time on the floor to point out to my colleagues that we have to address this. I do not believe it is a partisan matter. I think bipartisan support is growing all over this country. I have seen letters, documents from different places around the country that indicate that we ought to do something. North Dakota Governor Edward T. Schafer and Republican legislators supported what the North Dakota Farmers' Union and the North Dakota farmers both embraced in an agreement last week. One of them was a 1-year lifting of the loan rate caps. So here we have, I think, some bipartisan support for doing this. I do not think it is a partisan effort. Again, we have to be practical. We cannot be held prisoner by an ideology or blind devotion to every last provision of a farm bill passed over 2 years ago, 2 years ago when we saw some of the highest prices we have ever seen for crops. That is when the farm bill was passed. Now we are in the basement. So let's work for a practical solution that will help our farm families and rural communities this fall. Let's take the caps off of loan rates. Let's have at least a 1-year provision for a Farmer Owned Reserve to give the farmer the opportunity to market when prices are high. We must act soon. It is our responsibility. I think it would be a dereliction of our duty to leave here in October without passing legislation to address the deepening farm income crisis in our Nation. I hope and expect sometime within the next several days, perhaps next week, Senator Daschle and I and others, hopefully in a bipartisan manner, will again be offering an amendment to lift the loan rate caps, to get the loan rates up, the marketing loan basis for these farmers this fall. I am hopeful that our colleagues will really take a serious look at this, because we are facing a farm crisis in America unlike any we have seen in a long, long time, and we have to act and we have to act now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend, Senator Conrad, in paying tribute to a friend of mine--for over 25 years now, a fellow public servant, a fellow Iowan. It was perhaps one of the saddest phone calls I ever received in my life when I was notified Saturday morning that Kent Hall had died Friday night. He was a young man in the prime of his life. It just was a terrible shock. There are no words to convey to his family and his many friends the shock and the disbelief and the sadness that I feel about this great loss. Kent Hall, as I said, was a friend of mine for 25 years. Kent first came to work on my first congressional campaign in 1972. Both of us had been in the military. He had served in Italy. We both felt it was vitally important that we bring the Vietnam war to a swift conclusion. Too many of our friends had lost their lives in Vietnam. We saw the futility of it. So much of our campaign in 1972 was directed at the war. That s why Kent was one of my principal campaign workers that year. He was a student at Iowa State University then. We did not win that election, but I did fairly well. We stayed at it, and I ran again in 1974. By then, Kent was in graduate school at Iowa State and then became a full-time campaign worker on my 1974 campaign, and we won that election. He was just a tremendously hard worker. He was very good at getting people involved, especially a lot of the students at Iowa State. Kent even got some of the local high school students involved in the campaign. He inspired them, he got them involved, and he really represented the best of what it means to be in politics. There was never anything underhanded or dirty about Kent. He was just out there knocking on doors, getting the information out, and registering voters. Kent was very, very good at that. He was one of my best campaign workers. After that election, Kent joined my staff in Ames, IA, where Iowa University is located. He and I also shared the fact that we both came from very small towns. He came from Lamont, IA, in Buchanan County. I always kidded him that he was from a big town. His town, I think, had about 500 people and one stop light. My town of Cumming had about 150. After I was elected in 1974, I remember talking with Kent about the fact that we were from small towns and no politician had ever visited our towns. A Congressman or a Senator was somebody who might go to Des Moines or Cedar Rapids but never came to small towns. We hit upon this idea of taking our office out to the small towns. I believe that Kent Hall was the first person to do that in Iowa. As a congressional representative, he would go out and have open office hours in towns of 100 people, 150 people, 200 people. He would go to the post office, or if there wasn't a post office, the American Legion club, maybe a church basement, and have office hours in all these small towns around the district so that people who couldn't drive all the way to the district office would come and see him. It was a great outreach program. He initiated that, he started that in Iowa. Kent also did my community development work, rural housing, rural water programs. He initiated some good programs for people living in small towns and communities at that time. Again, it was because Kent felt very strongly that Government--whatever else Government's functions are constitutionally--ought to be helping make life better for people who live in rural areas and small towns who do not have the access to the resources of those who may live in our bigger cities. He was always greatly interested in extending Government out to people who live in rural areas. After his great work in Ames, Kent then came to Washington and received his doctorate degree in economics at George Washington University. He was a great economic thinker. During the 1980s, Kent was on the House Small Business Committee staff, and I had since come to the Senate in 1985. During some of the tough debates--the 1985 farm bill debate, the 1990 farm bill, and in between we had a credit bill we had to work on--I can always remember asking for Kent Hall's advice on a farm bill and especially on farm economics and agricultural economics. He really had an understanding of the economics of rural America and agriculture and small businesses and small towns that I found absolutely invaluable. After that, then, of course, he joined the staff of Senator Conrad of North Dakota. I listened to Senator Conrad speak very eloquently about his association with Kent Hall. Several years ago, Kent began dating a woman in my office from Algona, in northern Iowa, by the name of Michelle Reilly. They got married in 1993 and had two small kids--Austin, who is now about 2, and Caite, who is 4. So his death leaves two small kids. I want it to be known that Kent Hall was a wonderful human being, a personal friend, someone I admired and someone I regularly consulted on a lot of different matters--mainly agriculture and agricultural economics. Through it all, Kent remained a fine man. A lot of times people live and then they are gone and you wonder what it all meant, especially when someone dies as young and as abruptly as Kent. I am reminded of what John Kennedy once said when he was President. He was asked how he would like to be remembered after his passing on, whenever that would be. He responded with something I have never forgotten. He said ``the highest''--I may not have the words correct, but basically he said: The highest honor that can be given to a person is just to be remembered as a good and decent human being. If we use that as the highest tribute we can give to any person, that they are remembered as a good and decent human being, then that tribute certainly belongs to Kent Hall. He meant a great deal to his country. He meant a great deal to all of his friends, a great deal to Michelle, his wife, and to his two children. He meant a great deal to this Congress and this Senate. But above all this--above it all --we will always remember Kent Hall as a good and decent human being. To Michelle, Caiti and Austin, to his parents Kenneth and Evelyn, to his brothers and sister back in Iowa, to all his many friends, my wife and I and our family extend our deepest sympathies. And we will always remember Kent Hall for the kind and decent human being that he always was. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to address an unfilfilled obligation we have to our nation's veterans. The problem is a substantial backlog of requests by veterans for replacement military medals. I first became aware of this issue a few years ago after dozens of Iowa veteans began contacting my State offices requesting assistance in obtaining medals and other military decorations they earned while serving the country. These veterans had tried in vain--usually for months, sometimes for years--to navigate the vast Pentagon bureaucracy to receive their military decorations. The wait for medals routinely exceeded more than a year, even after interventin by my staff. I believe this is unacceptable. Our nation must continue its commitment to recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans in a timely manner. Addressing this simple concern will fulfill an important and solemn promise to those who served to preserve democracy both here and abroad. Let me briefly share the story of Mr. Dale Homes, a Korean Way veteran. Mr. Holmes fired a mortar on the front lines of the Korean War. Stacy Groff, the daughter of Mr. Holmes, tried unsuccessfully for three years through the normal Department of Defense channels to get the medals her father deserved. Ms. Groff turned to me after her letter writing produced no results. My office began an inquiry in January of 1997 and we were not able to resolve the issue favorably until September 1997. Ms. Groff made a statement about the delays her father experienced that sum up my sentiments perfectly: ``I don't think it's fair . . . My dad deserves--everybody deserves--better treatment than that.'' Ms. Groff could not be more correct. Our veterans deserve better than that from the country they served so courageously. Another example that came through my district offices is Mr. James Lunde, a Vietnam-era veteran. His brother in law contacted my Des Moines office in January of this year for help in obtaining a Purple Heart and other medals Mr. Lunde earned. These medals have been held up since 1975. Unfortunately, there is still no determination as to when Mr. Lunde's medals will be sent. The numbers are disheartening and can sound almost unbelievable. For example, a small Army Reserve staff at the St. Louis Office faces a backlog of tens of thousands of requests for medals. So why the lengthy delays? Why, at one personnel center, is there a backlog of 40,000 requests? The primary reason DOD officials cite for these unconscionable delays is personnel and other resource shortages resulting from budget cuts and hiring freezes. For example, the Navy Liaison Office has gone from 5 or more personnel to 3 within the last 3 years. Prior to this, the turnaround time was 4-5 months. Budget shortages have delayed the agencies ability to replace employees who have left, and in cases where they can be replaced, the ``learning curve'' in training new employees leads to further delays. Yesterday, during the debate over the Defense Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to eliminate the backlog of unfulfilled military medal requests. The amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. My amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to allocate resources necessary to eliminate the backlog of requests for military medals. Specifically, the Secretary of Defense shall make available to the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Air Force Personnel Center, the National Archives and Records Administration, and any other relevant office or command, the resources necessary to solve the problem. These resources could be in the form of increased personnel, equipment or whatever these offices need for this problem. In addition, this reallocation of resources is only to be made in a way that ``does not detract from the performance of other personnel service and personnel support activities within the DOD.'' Our veterans are not asking for much. Their brave actions in time of war deserve our highest respect, recognition, and admiration. My amendment will help expedite the recognition they so richly deserve. Our veterans deserve nothing less.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Hatch, Grassley, D'Amato, Wellstone, Mikulski, Craig, and Moseley-Braun to improve and expand rigorous scientific review of alternative and complementary therapies. This bill will elevate the NIH's Office of Alternative Medicine to Center status. It would be renamed the ``National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.'' Mr. President, the American public supports this bill. Increasingly, Americans are turning to complementary and alternative medicine. According to a recent study by Harvard University researchers, fully one third of Americans regularly use complementary and alternative medicine. This same study found that in 1990, American consumers spent more than $14 billion on these practices. In that year there were 425 million visits to complementary and alternative practitioners--more than those to conventional primary care practitioners! These practices, which range from acupuncture, to chiropractic care, to naturopathic, herbal and homeopathic remedies, are not simply complementary and alternative, but are integral to how millions of Americans manage their health and treat their illnesses. Yet there is little scientific research being done to investigate and validate these therapies. We must reexamine our spending priorities. Approximately 90 million Americans suffer from chronic illnesses which cost society roughly $659 billion in health care expenditures, lost productivity and premature death. According to the Centers for Disease Control, we spend $28.6 billion Medicare dollars on diabetes alone--a disease which can be treated effectively with low-cost alternative therapies. A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) revealed that the current health care delivery system is not meeting the needs of the chronically ill in the United States. The study also concluded that such trends reveal skyrocketing costs, increasing numbers of people in need and a dysfunctional system of care. Alternative medical therapies could offer a cost-saving alternative to this trend. We are in an era when we must take a closer look at ways to provide cost-effective, preventive health care, and as we do so, Congress must act to strengthen the mission of the Office of Alternative Medicine in finding safe and effective treatments and preventive methods for chronic conditions. Patients throughout our nation are suffering because there is a lack of available information on alternative medicine. In 1992, after finding that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was largely ignoring this increasingly important area, at my urging Congress passed legislation creating the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) within NIH. At that time, Congress charged OAM with assuring objective, rigorous scientific review of alternative therapies. They were to investigate and validate therapies so that consumers would be better informed as to what treatments work and what treatments don't. It is now clear that without greater authority to initiate research projects and assure unbiased and rigorous peer review, alternative therapies will not be adequately reviewed. The main problem is that the Office has no authority to directly provide research funding to any medical professional seeking to study the safety and effectiveness of alternative treatments. And unlike all other major organizations within NIH, the OAM has no autonomy to oversee its mission and goals. Because the Office must work through other Institutes to carry out research projects, promising projects are blocked and considerable time and resources are wasted. The bill we are introducing would increase the status and authority of the Office of Alternative Medicine by creating in its place a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH. The principal change in authority is granting the Center the ability to directly fund research proposals and other projects. This will not only assure that alternative therapies receive the review they need and deserve, it will improve efficiency by eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic steps required by the current set up. Our bill also addresses another shortcoming of the NIH's current handling of alternative medicine research. The hallmark of rigorous scientific review at NIH is the peer review process. However, when it comes to alternative and complementary therapies, there is no true peer review. There are no complementary or alternative medicine specialists on NIH peer review panels. That means, for example, that when a research proposal comes in on chiropractic care, it often is reviewed by peer review panels that include no chiropractors. Rather, these proposals may be reviewed by scientists who have little or no experience in or knowledge about chiropractic care. This has three negative results. First, these projects are not being reviewed by individuals with expertise in the fields contemplated by the research. This reduces the scientific quality of the review process. Second, because those reviewing these proposals have no expertise in this area, they may be less likely to support their approval. And, third, because those seeking NIH support of alternative medicine research know that their proposals will not receive true peer review, they may hesitate to apply, thereby reducing the number and quality of research proposals. Our proposal corrects this problem by requiring that projects are reviewed by scientists with expertise in the particular area of complementary and alternative medicine proposed to be studied. The federal government and state-of-the-art science must begin to catch up with the public's increasing demand for information and answers regarding alternative and complementary health care. The time is now. I urge you and my colleagues to support this important bill that will improve the quality of health care for Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I proudly did so.

Mr. HARKIN. I am aware that the Senator from Pennsylvania, I think, within a week after that, offered an amendment----

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk that basically would equalize the treatment that the Budget Committee gave to the defense side of the ledger, would equalize that with the nondefense side of the ledger. Now, let me try to explain it as best I can. A couple of years ago in a situation involving Social Security here on the Senate floor, the Parliamentarian of the Senate ruled in a way that gave the chairman of the Budget Committee the authority to decide whether or not scoring would be done under the CBO estimates and rules or under OMB. This year, using that authority, the chairman of the Budget Committee sent a letter dated April 27, 1998, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. This letter, among other things, basically said--and I will quote from the letter: Staff have also identified $2.0 billion in potential policy outlays scorekeeping adjustments. If the Administration's own policy initiatives are legislated for the DWCF, I will exercise my authority to score the legislation recognizing the administration's outlay estimates. What that means, in ``bureaucratese,'' is that the chairman of the Budget Committee decided to use his authority to use the administration's policy initiatives--read that to be OMB--to adjust the outlay figures for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. What did that add up to? We looked at it and those adjustments added up to $2.2 billion--$2.2 billion under OMB. Then the Budget Committee identified another $737 million in asset sales to come up with $2.9 billion additional for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. But I am looking at the $2.2 billion. Forget about the other. The $2.2 billion came about because the chairman of the Budget Committee decided to use the administration's own policy initiatives and use the administration's outlay estimates from OMB. Mr. President, what that means is that the Budget Committee chairman has the authority because of a ruling by the Parliamentarian of this body that he can decide whether to use OMB or CBO estimates for outlay purposes. I think it is appropriate to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter from the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, to Senator Stevens, dated April 27, 1998.

Mr. HARKIN. One amendment; I have one amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, during the deliberations over the fiscal year 1999 Defense Authorization bill, I offered an amendment to increase spending for our nation's veterans medical needs. The amendment, offered on June 25th and numbered as 2982 would have allowed the transfer of $329 million from the defense budget to support the VA medical budget. The amendment would have transferred funds so as to avoid harming the readiness of the Armed Forces and the quality of life of military personnel and their families. The amendment's description was incomplete as to the listing of cosponsors and I would like to correct the record at this time. Along with Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, also a longtime champion of veterans, should have been included as a cosponsor. Although the amendment did not receive the support of a majority of my colleagues, I appreciate the cosponsorship by Senator Bingaman and Senator Wellstone. I also appreciate the support of the 35 other Senators who voted in favor of increasing VA medical funding.

Mr. HARKIN. Now, why am I taking the time here late at night to talk about this? Because we are about to go out on a break. We are going to go out for the month of August. In the first week of September when we come back, the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, the largest of the nondefense appropriations subcommittees--and that is my colleague and my friend, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania--will be calling us together to mark up the nondefense portion of the appropriations bill. Right now, the allocation that was given to our subcommittee with respect to outlays is almost $300 million below a freeze from last year--$300 million below a freeze from last year. The House, using those figures, marked up a bill, and the only way they marked it up was by completely eliminating all of the funding for the summer jobs program and all of the funding for the heating assistance for the elderly and poor--the LIHEAP program. They just eliminated all of that, and then they came in with the allocations that they had. What my amendment basically says is that the chairman of the Budget Committee ought to apply the same rationale, the same decision, on using OMB estimates for nondefense as he did for defense. We need the outlays that this amendment will give us to fund programs important to Members on both sides of the aisle. This is not a Democrat amendment. Now, we have heard many calls on the other side of the aisle to get more funding for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We have had more calls from the other side of the aisle to fund more programs for the National Institutes of Health. We have heard calls on this side of the aisle for more funding for Head Start, for low-income heating energy assistance programs for the elderly and the working poor. This cuts across both sides of this aisle. Those are just a few of the programs that will be drastically cut if we don't have the figures that could be given to us by the chairman of the Budget Committee. Now, I will point out one thing. Recently, the Senators here voted on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It passed 99-0--I don't know who was missing, but it passed 99-0-- a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would raise NIH funding by $2 billion next year. That increase alone would require over $600 million in outlays. And I just said that our allocation puts us $300 million below a freeze.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend and chairman.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my chairman for his kind words. We have worked collaboratively. I could not ask for a better chairman than Senator Specter. We have worked closely together. We have talked privately about this and, quite frankly, I believe we are going to be able to work this out. That is why I will, at the appropriate time, withdraw my amendment, because I do believe we are going to be able to work this out with the chairman of the Budget Committee and with the chairman of the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee. I believe we will be able to work this out in a manner that will be, I hope, conducive to getting the money that we need immediately--just the basic requirements that we want for the National Institutes of Health, that we want for LIHEAP, and a lot of the other programs that so many Members support here. I wanted to raise this issue because I think it is vitally important that we use the same set of scoring for both defense and nondefense. So, Mr. President, with the assurances of my chairman that we will be able to get this thing worked out, I just wanted to refer to one thing on the chart. With the reallocation, with the amount of money we would get from the rescoring, we would have $770 million. That would get us the money that we need for NIH. That would get us the money that we need for LIHEAP and for the other programs--Head Start and others--that we need, which Senators support here. Mr. President, again, I raise this issue because it is vitally important. I don't know how many other Senators want to speak on this issue. But I would be willing to yield the floor at this time for any other Senators who might want to speak on the issue.

Mr. HARKIN. Was it called up?

Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill important to Persian Gulf War veterans. My amendment increases Department of Defense spending on research to determine the causes and possible treatments of those suffering from Gulf War illness by $10 million. It is my understanding that the amendment has been accepted. This is similar to the amendment I offered and was also accepted as part of the Defense Authorization bill. While the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, the physical and psychological ordeal for many of the nearly 700,000 troops who served our country in Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield has not ended. It's been seven years since our troops were winning the war in the Gulf. Unfortunately, they continue to suffer due to their deployment. Many of our troops returned from the Persian Gulf suffering from a variety of symptoms that have been difficult to trace to a single source or substance. Our veterans have experienced a combination of symptoms in varying degrees of seriousness, including: fatigue, skin rash, muscle and joint pain, headache, loss of memory, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal and respiratory problems. Unfortunately, the initial response from the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans affairs was to express skepticism about veterans' claims of illness and disability. This strained the government's credibility with veterans and their loved ones who dealt with the very real affects of their service in the Gulf. I vividly remember a series of roundtable discussions I held with veterans across Iowa after being contacted by several families of Gulf War veterans stricken with undiagnosed illnesses. And these folks weren't just sick. They were tired. They were tired of getting the runaround from the government they defended. They were tired of people who refused to listen . . . or told them it was in their head . . . or that it had nothing to do with their service in the Gulf. Their stories put a human face on the results of a study I requested through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The results add to the increasing volume of evidence that what these veterans were experiencing was indeed very real. More than one in three Gulf War veterans reported one or more significant medical problems. Fifteen percent reported two or more significant medical conditions. These Iowa veterans also reported significantly greater problems with quality of life issues than others on active duty at the time but not deployed in the Gulf. For example, Persian Gulf veterans had lower scores on measures of vitality, physical and mental health, ability to work, and increased levels of emotional problems and bodily pain. In addition, over 80 percent of the Gulf War veterans in the CDC study reported having been exposed to at least one potentially hazardous material during their Persian Gulf Deployment. A recent General Accounting Office report provided an alarming laundry list of such hazards including: ``compounds used to decontaminate equipment and protect it against chemical agents, fuel used as a sand suppressant in and around encampments, fuel used to burn human waste, fuel in shower water, leaded vehicle exhaust used to dry sleeping bags, depleted uranium, parasites, pesticides, multiple vaccines used to protect against chemical warfare agents, and smoke from oil-well fires.'' To this rather exhaustive list, we can also add exposure to nerve gas. The DOD and CIA have admitted that as many as 100,000 or more . . . that's 1 in 7 troops deployed in the Gulf . . . may have been exposed to chemical agents released into the atmosphere when U.S. troops destroyed an Iraqi weapons bunker. A Presidential Advisory Committee also found credible evidence of exposure to chemical agents in a second incident when troops crossed Iraqi front lines on the first day of the ground war. Chemical weapons specialists in these units said they detected poison gas. Unfortunately, these detections were initially neither acknowledged nor pursued by the Pentagon. That being said, the Pentagon and others have been more forthcoming recently with relevant information, documents, and research. But more needs to be done. I am pleased that the President, acting based on legislation I cosponsored, extended the time veterans will have to file claims with the government for illnesses related to their service in the Gulf. Previously, they had to show their illness surfaced within two years of their service. Now, they have until the end of 2001. This is a great victory for our veterans. Gulf War illnesses do not surface on a time line convenient to the rules of bureaucrats. This extension will help us meet our responsibility to take care of these soldiers. But, more still needs to be done. There is still substantial mystery and confusion surrounding the symptoms and health problems experienced by Gulf War veterans. While many veterans have been diagnosed with a recognizable disease, I am concerned about those who have no explanation, no label, no treatment for their suffering. More needs to be done to help these Americans. For example, the Presidential Advisory Committee has suggested research in three new areas to help close the gaps in what we know about Gulf War illnesses. They suggest research on the long-term health effects of low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents, the combined effects of medical injections meant to combat chemical warfare with other Gulf War risk factors, and on the body's physical response to stress. It is also imperative to ensure that longitudinal studies and mortality studies are funded since some health effects, such as cancer, may not appear for several years after the end of the Gulf War. Although there may be no single Gulf-War related disease so to speak, it is widely acknowledged that the multiple illnesses and symptoms experienced by Gulf War veterans are connected to their service during the war. Therefore, we must not forget on our solemn obligation to those who willingly served their country and put their lives in harm's way. To that end, I offer this amendment to increase research into the illnesses experienced by Persian Gulf veterans by $10 million. The funds would support much more research, including the evaluation and treatment of a host of neuro-immunological disorders, as well as possible connections to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyaglia. Our veterans are not asking for much. They want answers. They want the truth. Our veterans answered our nation's call in war, and now we must answer theirs. Should our priorities include our Gulf War veterans? I believe the choice is self evident and absolutely clear. amendment NO. 3451 (Purpose: To reduce funds available for development of the Navy Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System and to provide funds for the procurement of Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS) equipment) On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following new general provision: Sec. 8104. Within the amounts appropriated under Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', the amount available for Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System is hereby reduced by $9,827,000, and the amount available for Consolidated Training Systems Development is hereby increased by $9,827,000. amendment no. 3452 (Purpose: To require a comprehensive assessment of the TRICARE program) On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following: Sec. 8014. (a) Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report containing a comprehensive assessment of the TRICARE program. (b) The assessment under subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) A comparison of the health care benefits available under the health care options of the TRICARE program known as TRICARE Standard, TRICARE Prime, and TRICARE Extra with the health care benefits available under the health care plan of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program most similar to each such option that has the most subscribers as of the date of enactment of this Act, including-- (A) the types of health care services offered by each option and plan under comparison; (B) the ceilings, if any, imposed on the amounts paid for covered services under each option and plan under comparison; and (C) the timeliness of payments to physicians providing services under each option and plan under comparison. (2) An assessment of the effect on the subscription choices made by potential subscribers to the TRICARE program of the Department of Defense policy to grant priority in the provision of health care services to subscribers to a particular option. (3) An assessment whether or not the implementation of the TRICARE program has discouraged medicare-eligible individuals from obtaining health care services from military treatment facilities, including-- (A) an estimate of the number of such individuals discouraged from obtaining health care services from such facilities during the two-year period ending with the commencement of the implementation of the TRICARE program; and (B) an estimate of the number of such individuals discouraged from obtaining health care services from such facilities during the two-year period following the commencement of the implementation of the TRICARE program. (4) An assessment of any other matters that the Comptroller General considers appropriate for purposes of this section. (c) In this section: (1) The term ``Federal Employees Health Benefits program'' means the health benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. (2) The term ``TRICARE program'' has the meaning given that term in section 1072(7) of title 10, United States Code.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object--I will reserve the right to object. Is this unanimous consent on advancing AMTA payments? Is that what is before the body right now? Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the unanimous consent before the Senate right now?

Mr. HARKIN. I would ask the proponents, I would ask the majority leader then, is this the unanimous consent that would reopen the 1996 farm bill? Because the farm bill stipulates that a farmer could get half of the payment if he wanted to in December or January and could get the other half the next September. That was in the farm bill. As I understand it, this then changes what the farm bill provides. Is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Further reserving the right to object then, this then would undo some of the provisions that were in the 1996 farm bill, because it changes the dates and circumstances under which the farmer could get the AMTA payment, as it is called. I understand that some people want to do that and they want to reopen the farm bill. That is fine. But I would remind my colleagues that a couple of weeks ago we offered an amendment to take the caps off the commodity loan rates. For a typical Iowa farmer with 500 acres of corn that amendment would have put about $20,000 of additional income in the farmer's pocket this fall. Not only does this bill involve significantly less money for that farmer, but it only advances money that he is already going to get anyway. As far as increasing income to the farmer, this bill doesn't do a darned thing. What we need to do is to get the indemnity payments through that Senator Daschle is talking about, $500 million. There are a lot of farmers out there who are hurting very badly. I have to tell you, there is a crisis in agriculture today. Farmers have been devastated by bad weather, by crop disease in the Upper Midwest, and especially in the Dakotas. We can pass the $500 million for indemnity payments tonight. Why don't we pass that measure by unanimous consent right now to get that $500 million in indemnity payments out to farmers immediately? Why can't we do that? I ask the majority leader, why can't we pass that?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry and Ms. Moseley-Braun I introduce the Children's Act for Responsible Employment or the CARE Act that will modernize our antiquated domestic child labor laws. Congressman Richard Gephardt and Congressman Tom Lantos are introducing companion legislation in the House. It is hard to imagine that we are on the verge of entering the 21st century and we still have young children working under hazardous conditions in the United States. Unfortunately, outdated U.S. child labor laws that have not been revamped since the 1930's allow this practice to continue. I have been working on the eradication of child labor overseas since 1992. At that time, I introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, which prohibits the importation of products made by abusive and exploitative child labor. Since then, we have made some important progress, but in order to end child labor overseas the U.S. must lead by example and address child labor in our own backyard. Now, when I talk about child labor, I'm not talking about a part time job or a teenager who helps out on the family farm after school. There is nothing wrong with that. What I am talking about is the nearly 300,000 children illegally employed in the U.S. I would like to insert for the record at this time the testimony of Sergio Reyes, who was expected to testify at a hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Training I requested on June 11 of this year. Mr. Reyes was unable to attend that hearing but his written testimony tells a story that is becoming all to familiar in the United States. According to a recent study by economist Douglas L. Krause of Rutgers University, there are nearly 60,000 children under age 14 working in the U.S. Of those children, one will die every five days in a work related accident according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Nowhere is this more true than children who work in agriculture. In general, children receive fewer protections in agriculture than other industries. The minimum age for hazardous work in agriculture is 16, it is 18 for all other occupations. In a GAO preliminary report released in March 1998, the researchers noted that ``children working in agriculture are legally permitted to work at younger ages, in more hazardous occupations, and for longer periods of time than their peers in other industries.'' For example, a 13 year old child can not work as a clerk in an air conditioned office building, but can pick strawberries in a field in the middle of summer. That same report noted that over 155,000 children are working in agriculture. However, because that number is based on census data, the Farm Worker Union places the number at nearly 800,000 children working in agriculture. In December 1997, the Associated Press (AP) did a five part series on child labor in the United States documenting 4 year olds picking chili peppers in New Mexico and 10 year olds harvesting cucumbers in Ohio. In one tragic example reported by the AP, 14 year-old Alexis Jaimes was crushed to death when a 5000 lb. hammer fell on him while working on a construction site in Texas. I was outraged. At the June hearing of the Senate Employment and Training Subcommittee, two things became clear with regard to U.S. domestic child labor. First, agricultural child laborers are dropping out of school at an alarming rate. Over of 45 percent of farm worker youth will never complete high school. Second, the laws that we do have regarding child labor are inadequate to protect a modern workforce. Our present civil and criminal penalties are simply insufficient to deter compliance with the law and need to be strengthened and more vigorously enforced. My legislation, which is supported by the Administration and children's advocates groups across the country, such as the Child Labor Coalition and the Solidarity Center, will help rectify this alarming situation. It will; raise the current age of 16 to 18 in order to engage in hazardous agricultural work, close the loopholes in federal child labor laws which allow a three year old to work in the fields, and increase the civil and criminal penalties for child labor violations to a minimum of $500, up from $100 and a maximum of $15,000, up from $10,000. In closing. Let me say that we must end child labor--the last vestige of slavery in the world. It is time to give all children the chance at a real childhood and give them the skills necessary to compete in tomorrow's work place. There is no excuse for the number of children being maimed or killed in work related accidents when labor saving technologies have been developed in recent years. So, on today's farms, it makes even less sense than ever to put kids in dangerous situations operating hazardous machinery. Mr. President, I hope that we will be able to vote on this legislation in the near future so that we can prepare our children for the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, a letter from the Child Labor Coalition, and the testimony of Sergio Reyes be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry and Ms. Moseley-Braun I introduce the Children's Act for Responsible Employment or the CARE Act that will modernize our antiquated domestic child labor laws. Congressman Richard Gephardt and Congressman Tom Lantos are introducing companion legislation in the House. It is hard to imagine that we are on the verge of entering the 21st century and we still have young children working under hazardous conditions in the United States. Unfortunately, outdated U.S. child labor laws that have not been revamped since the 1930's allow this practice to continue. I have been working on the eradication of child labor overseas since 1992. At that time, I introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, which prohibits the importation of products made by abusive and exploitative child labor. Since then, we have made some important progress, but in order to end child labor overseas the U.S. must lead by example and address child labor in our own backyard. Now, when I talk about child labor, I'm not talking about a part time job or a teenager who helps out on the family farm after school. There is nothing wrong with that. What I am talking about is the nearly 300,000 children illegally employed in the U.S. I would like to insert for the record at this time the testimony of Sergio Reyes, who was expected to testify at a hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Training I requested on June 11 of this year. Mr. Reyes was unable to attend that hearing but his written testimony tells a story that is becoming all to familiar in the United States. According to a recent study by economist Douglas L. Krause of Rutgers University, there are nearly 60,000 children under age 14 working in the U.S. Of those children, one will die every five days in a work related accident according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Nowhere is this more true than children who work in agriculture. In general, children receive fewer protections in agriculture than other industries. The minimum age for hazardous work in agriculture is 16, it is 18 for all other occupations. In a GAO preliminary report released in March 1998, the researchers noted that ``children working in agriculture are legally permitted to work at younger ages, in more hazardous occupations, and for longer periods of time than their peers in other industries.'' For example, a 13 year old child can not work as a clerk in an air conditioned office building, but can pick strawberries in a field in the middle of summer. That same report noted that over 155,000 children are working in agriculture. However, because that number is based on census data, the Farm Worker Union places the number at nearly 800,000 children working in agriculture. In December 1997, the Associated Press (AP) did a five part series on child labor in the United States documenting 4 year olds picking chili peppers in New Mexico and 10 year olds harvesting cucumbers in Ohio. In one tragic example reported by the AP, 14 year-old Alexis Jaimes was crushed to death when a 5000 lb. hammer fell on him while working on a construction site in Texas. I was outraged. At the June hearing of the Senate Employment and Training Subcommittee, two things became clear with regard to U.S. domestic child labor. First, agricultural child laborers are dropping out of school at an alarming rate. Over of 45 percent of farm worker youth will never complete high school. Second, the laws that we do have regarding child labor are inadequate to protect a modern workforce. Our present civil and criminal penalties are simply insufficient to deter compliance with the law and need to be strengthened and more vigorously enforced. My legislation, which is supported by the Administration and children's advocates groups across the country, such as the Child Labor Coalition and the Solidarity Center, will help rectify this alarming situation. It will; raise the current age of 16 to 18 in order to engage in hazardous agricultural work, close the loopholes in federal child labor laws which allow a three year old to work in the fields, and increase the civil and criminal penalties for child labor violations to a minimum of $500, up from $100 and a maximum of $15,000, up from $10,000. In closing. Let me say that we must end child labor--the last vestige of slavery in the world. It is time to give all children the chance at a real childhood and give them the skills necessary to compete in tomorrow's work place. There is no excuse for the number of children being maimed or killed in work related accidents when labor saving technologies have been developed in recent years. So, on today's farms, it makes even less sense than ever to put kids in dangerous situations operating hazardous machinery. Mr. President, I hope that we will be able to vote on this legislation in the near future so that we can prepare our children for the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, a letter from the Child Labor Coalition, and the testimony of Sergio Reyes be printed in the Record.