Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I understand. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a couple of other items, then I will be ready to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. As I said, after I get the floor again.

Mr. HARKIN. I am prepared to move forward with that agreement right now.

Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Again, you might ask, well, why should they have to look for this? Why should procurement officers have to be concerned about this? Under 48 CFR 9.406-2, ``Causes for Debarment,'' there is a whole list of things that they should look for that they made. The ``Made in America'' inscription that I have mentioned, violations of the Drug- Free Workplace Act--there is a whole list of things about which they have to be concerned. The fact is, they do not have to be concerned about child labor right now. It is not even a concern of theirs. So we find ourselves in a peculiar position that procurement laws for the Federal Government say that you have to meet certain standards--a drug-free workplace; you have to have a ``Made in America'' inscription if it is made in America; you have to have country of origin--but you do not have to be worried about child labor. I find that rather odd. What this all really arises out of is that in the 1930 Tariff Act, a provision was added that barred the entry into this country of any item made with forced or indentured labor. That has been part of our law since 1930. Well, forced or indentured labor--what does that mean? It has been interpreted to mean prison labor. There are other forms of forced or indentured labor. A year ago I wrote a letter to the Department of the Treasury asking for a clarification of this: Did forced or indentured labor cover forced or indentured child labor? The letter they wrote back was sort of: ``Well, yes, we think it does because we say `forced or indentured labor.'' ' We didn't specify it has to be adult labor, but it has never really been clarified. So we have sought to clarify that. Again, procurement officers have to take into account they have to be aware of whether or not something is made by prison labor. Can the Federal Government buy items made by prison labor? The answer is no, absolutely not. Can the Federal Government today buy items made by forced or indentured child labor? The answer is yes. We do it all the time overseas. We buy carpets, we buy furniture, we buy glassware, we buy leather. We buy a lot of items made by forced or indentured child labor. And that is what this provision seeks to get to. The Fair Labor Standards Act does not reach that far, does not reach overseas, does not reach to these items. Our procurement policies do not reach to our embassies abroad, for example. They are part of the Federal Government. They are part of the executive branch. They do buy items. But right now they are blind as to whether something is made by forced or indentured child labor. That is why this provision is in the bill. Lastly, Mr. President, I just point out that the administration is in support of this section, 642, of the Treasury-General Government appropriations bill. I have a letter here from Secretary Alexis Herman saying that this provision, a prohibition against the Federal Government's purchase of Federal products made by forced or indentured child labor ``would establish a system to ensure that contractors take steps to avoid providing products to the Government that have been mined, produced, or manufactured using forced or indentured child labor. The Administration agrees that we should tap the purchasing power of the U.S. government in our efforts to eliminate egregious forms of child labor. In addition, the President's FY 1999 Budget includes an $89 million increase to address both international and domestic child labor abuses. We believe [this] amendment, coupled with our FY 1999 initiatives, will help reduce the prevalence of these forms of child labor. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Again, I think that the provision stands foursquare on constitutional grounds. I do not believe there is any constitutional problem with it. I do not believe it runs far afield of provisions that we already have in present procurement law. It simply identifies one aspect, that is, like the ``Made in America'' or the ``drug-free workplace'' or ``prison labor.'' It identifies another one, and that is ``forced or indentured child labor'' as one of those items that we want to put up front and to have those who seek to sell items to the Federal Government attest that they are not using forced or indentured child labor in the provision of those goods. Again, this will be based upon the list. There will be a list, yes, publication of a list of prohibited items. The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of State, shall publish in the Federal Register every other year a list of items that such officials have identified that might have been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured child labor. So we work from that list. And that list has to be published. The head of an executive agency shall include in each solicitation of offers for a contract for the procurement of an item included on a list published under subsection (b) [the list I just mentioned] the following clauses: Again, the clauses stating that the contractor has not indeed used forced or indentured child labor in the production of any of the items that are on that list. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I will consider that. Just a second. Let me finish my statement. It does not sound totally unreasonable.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this provision is not unconstitutional and does not interfere with the Constitution, and it does not interfere with the exercise of any fourth amendment right a Government contractor might have. The provision makes it possible for the Federal Government to ensure that it does not purchase items produced with forced or indentured child labor. Without ready Government access to records, workers and worker places, meaningful enforcement would be impossible. Now this principle applies in a whole range of worker protection laws. Now there is no need for a statutory probable cause requirement or a statutory procedure for challenging a search by a Government agency. A contractor who believes that a Federal agency had no probable cause to inspect his business would be free to refuse entry to the agency. It is a constitutional right. The agency would then be required to seek a warrant from a court, and if necessary, to ask the court to enforce the warrant. In this way, the court would ensure that the fourth amendment was followed. Lastly, this is how the process works under comparable statutes, like the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Applying the fourth amendment, the Supreme Court has held that OSHA must show probable cause or the legal equivalent if an employer refuses OSHA entry. There is no statutory probable cause requirement and no statutory procedure for challenging a search. Government agencies can be expected to develop reasonable and neutral criteria for seeking access. They would do so in order to comply with the fourth amendment which the courts will apply. OSHA, for example, has adopted such criteria, although the Occupational Safety Health Act does not prescribe this, and they have been upheld by the courts. Only Government agencies with a legitimate need for access would be entitled to access. The access provision in section 642 makes clear that the contractors' obligation is to provide access only to the head of an agency, a Federal officer, and only for the purpose of determining whether forced indentured child labor was used. So there is no reason to believe this provision would be invoked by an official acting without authority. But, if it happened, the contractor could not be sanctioned for refusing to cooperate, for example. The fourth amendment may not apply in these certain cases in any case until a contractor's consent to providing access is required to provide access. The accession provision is intended to be incorporated in a Government contract. The contract provision would be required only for companies who wish to supply the Federal Government with an item from a list of items that may have been introduced by forced or indentured child labor. I keep coming back to that. The Senator raises the specter that you will have the Government people all of a sudden going into Boeing and places like that. That won't happen, first of all, because they won't have anything on the list. So they won't have that. There will not be items that have been identified produced by forced or indentured child labor. Companies which choose to supply such items and which accept the terms of the contract have agreed to provide access. As I said, there is no constitutional problem with this provision whatsoever. Now, again, Mr. President, what we do have a problem with, and what this amendment really gets to, and for which there is no provision in law, is, when an arm of the Federal Government, such as the executive branch, acting through embassies overseas, procures items and those items are identified as having been produced by forced or indentured child labor, there is nothing that we can do about that--unless we adopt this provision, of course. And this is a good and reasonable place for this provision to be, in this appropriations bill, since we are providing appropriations for the running of the Government. So this is an appropriate place for the amendment. I think there is some urgency to this also. The urgency is that we are gaining more and more information around the world about the use of forced or indentured child labor. The United States has, quite appropriately--and I am happy to see it--taken a forward position on trying to do away with forced and indentured child labor. I mentioned the letter from the Secretary of Labor indicating that the President had already asked for, I think, $89 million in the budget to address child labor abuses both here and abroad. We participate heavily in IPEC, the International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor, which has been increased this year from $30 million, up from $3 million. So the U.S. Government has--and also through our work on the International Labor Organization, UNICEF, and others, we have been taking a very strong position against forced indentured child labor, as we should. But if one arm of our Government overseas is openly procuring items made by forced and indentured child labor, what kind of a signal does that send? So that is what this provision in the bill seeks to end, and would end, if this provision remains in. Now, the things that the Senator from Tennessee is talking about we already incorporate in our amendment. There is a debarment procedure provision in the bill. That is already there. That debarment procedure is already there. What the Senator's amendment does is, it takes away those preliminary steps of publishing a list and then say to a procurement officer, look out for these items, and if you are buying one of these items, have that company attest on the form that they are not using forced and indentured child labor. If they do, then they are agreeing that you can, as we have under FAR--that the head of an agency is authorized to inspect the records of that company. As I said earlier, the Senator from Tennessee, I think, raised one point that I think was very legitimate, and that was in the original amendment. It says, on page 99, the words ``any official of the United States.'' Quite frankly, that is too broad. As we look at the FAR and at title X for the Department of Defense, it uses the words ``the head of an agency.'' So I have a perfecting amendment that I am going to offer that would strike out ``any official of the United States'' and insert in lieu thereof ``the head of the executive agency or the inspector general of the executive agency.'' Amendment No. 3374 to Amendment No. 3353 (Purpose: To provide a substitute that limits the scope of the requirement relating to inspection of a contractor's records)

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what this perfecting amendment does, very simply, is it takes the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee and strikes out ``any official of the United States'' and inserts in lieu thereof ``the head of the executive agency or the inspector general of the executive agency.'' Secondly, it strikes the word ``might'' from page 99, because in the original language it said that they shall publish in the Federal Register every other year a list of items that ``might have been mined. . ..'' We strike that out. That is a great suggestion, to say that they have to publish a list of items that such officials have identified that ``have been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured child labor.'' So this perfecting amendment tightens up my original amendment in two ways. It provides that only the head of an agency or the inspector general of that agency may be the one to do the inspection or authorize the inspection. Secondly, it says that the published list can only be of items that have been identified as having been mined, manufactured, or produced by forced or indentured child labor. The rest of the provision remains the same as it is in the bill, but this tightens up those two provisions. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I would be glad to, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend and colleague from Minnesota. Senator Thompson and I were prepared to engage in some colloquies and debates and things on this amendment. I was surprised. I thought it had been called up. I apologize to my friend from Minnesota. We were scheduled to start this debate on the issue of child labor. Mr. President, the Thompson amendment, which is the pending amendment, seeks to strike from the bill a provision that was incorporated at the committee level--subcommittee level and committee level--by unanimous consent. I don't know of any votes that were held on it. It seemed to be adopted overwhelmingly. No one raised any questions about it in full committee or anything like that. The provision deals with setting some parameters on procurement policy for the Federal Government, to the maximum extent possible to preclude the Federal Government from purchasing items made by forced or indentured child labor. I hardly know where to begin to respond to some of the issues raised by my friend from Tennessee, but let me attempt to start here. First of all, right now it is true that there are certain laws that we have that cover child labor in this country. But that gets to the point where if something happens, then you can take someone to court and you can fine them and debar them and all that. There is a long process and procedure for that. What this provision that was put in the committee bill seeks to do is to set up a structure to try to avoid or to preclude this from happening in the first place. So that those who sell to the Federal Government would be on notice that, first of all, there is a list of items that would be promulgated--published by the Department of Labor in consultation with the Department of State and Department of the Treasury--a list of items which would be very small in number because there are not that many items, a list of items that have historically and traditionally been made with the use of forced or indentured child labor; that if you are a seller to the Federal Government and if you are procuring or selling those kinds of items--like hand-knitted carpets, for example, or certain leather items, some apparel, rattan furniture, things like that--where the Department of Labor over the last 4 years in studying this issue has issued about four volumes on the use of forced and indentured child labor and the products that are made and that type of thing. These are very extensive studies that are made by the Department of Labor. What this provision in the bill does is it sets up a list. They put out a list. Then, if you are selling to the Federal Government, you check a little box that you attest-- ``attestation'' they call it--you attest that the item that you are selling to the Federal Government was not made using forced or indentured child labor. That is basically it. The list is necessary for two reasons. First, it would narrow the scope to only suspect industries, thus preventing a sort of widespread kind of provision or a burdensome requirement on industries where the use of forced or indentured child labor does not occur. For example, I heard some mention made of Boeing aircraft. Boeing aircraft does not make things made by forced or indentured child labor. There has never been a scintilla of evidence to show that, so none of their products would be on the list. So we narrow the scope right away to just a few suspect industries. Second, the list is necessary because procurement officers need guidelines to enforce the intent of the legislation. Again, this list would be compiled based on the four child labor studies already released by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the only companies that would be affected by this are ones that sell an item that appears on the list. If you don't sell an item that appears on the list, you will not be affected by this. You would not have to attest; you would not have to check the box and attest that the item was not made by forced or indentured child labor if you are not even on the list. Boeing and all those wouldn't even be on the list, so they would not have to check the box. That is the first thing. We keep it narrow, and that is why we have the list. Mention was made by the Senator from Tennessee about the Fair Labor Standards Act, that we already have this law. I say to the Senator from Tennessee that this law doesn't cover U.S. embassies abroad purchasing goods. For example, we could have an embassy, say in Pakistan, India, or whatever country, buying glassware or buying hand-knitted carpets or buying rattan furniture--I mentioned that--but they are not covered by this at all. I would like to have them covered by it. That is the intent of the provision that is in the committee bill. They are not covered by it. They would be covered by this. U.S. law, the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to the United States, but not to other countries. That is why this provision is necessary. These are not new requirements, as I have said before and in private conversation with the Senator from Tennessee. There are similar requirements for companies that sell to the Armed Forces. I will get into that in a second. Even though it has to do with different types of contracts, they are similar. I think there is a difference without a distinction, but they are similar, and I will get into that in a second. They said it would be duplicative. It is not really duplicative. Forced and indentured child labor is already illegal in interstate commerce, that is true, but what I am seeking to do, for debarment purposes, and what this amendment will do is have them attest up front that they are not using child labor. There are no provisions, as I understand, in law for that at this time. Next, there was a question raised about the constitutionality of the provision. It requires a contractor to agree to allow official access to the records of the employees and premises. As I said, we already have such a provision, and as I said, we discussed that in private. FAR, title 10 of Armed Forces, 10 U.S.C. section 2313 says: Agency authority. Section 2313, examination of records of contractor. (1) The head of an agency, acting through an authorized representative, is authorized to inspect the plant and audit the records of: (A) a contractor performing a cost reimbursement, incentive, time and materials, labor hour or price redeterminable contract or any combination of such contracts made by that agency under this chapter and, (B) a subcontractor performing any cost reimbursement, incentive, time and materials, labor hour or price redeterminable subcontract or any combination of such contracts under a contract referred to in subparagraph (A). The head of an agency, acting through himself or through an authorized representative can already have access to premises and to records under Armed Forces procurement law, and that is under FAR. I understand this has to do with different types of contracts. That is OK, but that is, I think, a difference without distinction. It may be a time reimbursable or cost reimbursement or labor hour or price redeterminable contract. It is all fine and good, but I don't think that is really a distinct difference with a contract that provides goods or services to the Federal Government. So I say I don't think we have any kind of a constitutional problem there. Senator Thompson did raise, I believe, a good point, and I am going to correct that with a technical amendment, to track the wording that is already in the FAR and in title 10. I am going to make it specifically that it is the head of an agency, acting through an authorized representative, so that not just anyone would have access, but that it would have to come from the head of an agency. There is another question that the Senator from Tennessee raised, and that is, why do we exempt NAFTA or WTO countries. I say to my friend from Tennessee, I wish we didn't have to, but I am told we have to because it is a treaty that we signed on NAFTA and WTO. My amendment will exempt those countries that are parties to these two agreements. I am not happy about it, but it is the current U.S. law. It is treaty, and I guess we have to adhere to it, as I understand. We can't change this law or negotiate new procurement agreements. I will just point out that the Committee on Government Procurements, the parties to this under WTO and NAFTA, basically are countries we really don't have a problem with--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany and places like that we really don't have much of a problem. The only problem that we do have, I say, in NAFTA is perhaps with Mexico. But then, again, that is part of the NAFTA agreement and, quite frankly, we are stuck with that for right now on that issue. The Federal Acquisition Regulations govern acquisition by executive branch agencies. Much of this regulation implements various statutes and Executive orders. My amendment is not unique under the FAR in seeking to implement U.S. standards and policies. For example, Federal agencies cannot acquire supplies or services originating from sources within or that are located in or transported from or through North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Sudan and Iraq. We already have that. In addition, my amendment is not unique in seeking to address a policy concern, such as protecting domestic industries through Federal procurement legislation. For example, the Buy America Act provides an advantage to U.S. domestic producers through the competitive bidding process. As a matter of fact, I include Senator Thompson's amendment as part of my provision already. However, I crafted my provision to be more targeted. My provision does treat forced or indentured child labor differently than other procurement regulations because of the illegal and hidden nature of the act it seeks to prevent. For example, all goods shipped to the United States must carry a country of origin label. No such provision in current Federal procurement regulations exist for forced or indentured child labor. Likewise, the Buy America Act model is different because it operates through the bidding process. No such procedure exists for forced or indentured child labor. You don't know where the forced or indentured child labor is. Therefore, it was necessary to create a special targeted mechanism to address this issue in a meaningful way that is the least burdensome to contractors. In short, to accomplish this, the provision that is in the bill, one, calls on the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretaries of Treasury and State, to draft a list of items which they feel historically has been made with forced or indentured child labor. That keeps the perspective narrow. Next, this provision requires the contractor to sign an attestation that their products were not made with forced or indentured child labor and, yes, to provide access to records, premises and persons for a lawful investigation arising from allegations that forced or indentured child labor was used to produce the product. Again, I read that other one that is already in Armed Forces, that the head of an agency, acting through an authorized representative, can inspect a plant and audit the records of, et cetera. Lastly, this provision provides a debarment option for 3 years for making a false certification. In other words, if you certify that you did not use child labor, and inspections prove otherwise, then you could be debarred for up to 3 years for making a false certification. Senator Thompson's proposal, his amendment, is not targeted enough for two reasons: One, procurement officers need specific information in order to apply a statute. Senator Thompson's amendment will take away the list which gives contract officers specific areas to look for forced or indentured child labor problems. By removing this self- certification, and the threat of debarment for a false certification, you ensure that the provision will never be effectively enforced because the Federal Government may never be able to track the forced or indentured child labor practices of all of its contractors, much less ever investigating them. Quite simply, I do not believe that signing a simple attestation, if you are providing items to the U.S. Government which appear on a list of problem items, will prove a very difficult burden. It will be burdensome if you are illegally employing children. Then it will be burdensome. But if you are not, then it will not be. So again, this provision seeks to deter child labor, stopping it before it happens, or before the U.S. Government buys goods made with forced or indentured child labor. Obviously, the Thompson amendment seeks to debar those who have been convicted or fined for using child labor. Nothing wrong with that. But that is included in the provision that is in the bill already. But what he carves out is a provision that seeks to prevent it from happening in the first place by saying that if you use it, the U.S. Government just simply will not do business with you. I say, the difference might be that Senator Thompson's approach is: ``We'll do business with you. Now, if we can take you in and prove through a lengthy court process and stuff, then we'll debar you.'' But mine comes up front and says, ``Look, if you are using child labor, and you are on this list, you are making these items, you have to attest that you are not using child labor.'' That right away puts them on notice--puts them on notice that they are going to be in for some problems if they are on that list and that they would be subject to a head of an agency to come in and inspect them and inspect their records to see whether or not they actually were using child labor.

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry, I thought we were on the Thompson amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. Before the Senator from Minnesota starts, what is the order of precedence at the desk right now, of amendments? What amendment are we on right now?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the order of business? I have an amendment I wish to send to the desk. Is that proper to do so at this time?

Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment I send to the desk.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is a plague sweeping across our Nation. It is ruining an untold number of lives, claiming countless numbers of our children. It is in our streets as well as our classrooms. Drugs have become more abundant. But there is a new drug, one that is far more addictive and readily available than heroin, cocaine, or any other illegal narcotic. Methamphetamine is becoming the leading addictive drug in this Nation. From the suburbs, to city streets, to the corn rows of Iowa, meth is destroying thousands of lives every year. The majority of those lives, unfortunately, are our children. Methamphetamine is commonly referred to as Iowa's drug of choice in my State. It is reaching epidemic proportions as it sweeps from the west coast, ravages through the Midwest, and is now beginning to reach the east coast. The trail of destruction of human lives as a result of methamphetamine addiction stretches across America. To illustrate the violence that meth elicits in people, methamphetamine is cited as a contributing factor in 80 percent of domestic violence cases in my State, and a leading factor in a majority of violent crimes. I recently introduced the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act which I think will get support and get through the Senate. But I offer this amendment today as an opportunity to take immediate action to help our Nation's law enforcement in their war on methamphetamine. This amendment makes a simple and modest request, taking $8 million in certain offsets and puts those dollars where they can do real good to combat the growing problem of methamphetamine. These funds will be added to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program to be used for increased enforcement and prosecution of meth dealers, additional undercover agents, and to help pay for the tremendous cost of confiscation and cleanup of clandestine meth labs. The number of meth arrests, court cases, and confiscation of labs continues to escalate. The number of clandestine meth labs confiscated and destroyed in 1998 is on pace to triple the number that was confiscated in 1997--so triple this year over last year. The cost of cleaning up each lab ranges from $5,000 to $90,000. This cost is being absorbed by communities who are not prepared or experienced to deal with the dangers of methamphetamine. These clandestine meth labs create an enormous amount of hazardous waste. For every 1 pound of methamphetamine produced, there are 5 to 6 pounds of hazardous waste as a by-product. This waste is highly toxic and seeps into the ground where eventually it ends up in our drinking water supply. The dangers posed to law enforcement officers are also greatly increased by these meth labs. Many peddlers of meth have now what they call ``kitchen'' labs. Meth pushers are now simply using mobile homes or even pickup trucks to produce their drugs. Combining many volatile chemicals in an uncontrolled environment, meth labs are time bombs to police officers and communities everywhere. I believe we have a window of opportunity as a nation to take a stand right now to defeat this scourge. This amendment will not solve all of these problems, but it will give law enforcement the support that they vitally need in their efforts to defeat this dangerous drug. Mr. President, family after family is being devastated across the Midwest. In my State, I have seen methamphetamine skyrocket in its use--the importation in the State and the development of these methamphetamine labs in the State of Iowa. Communities are trying to fight this, but they do not have the resources. Children are being lost and getting hooked to this deadly drug every day. So the time now is to do whatever we can to try to halt the growth of these meth labs, to give our high-intensity drug traffic areas the tools that they need to stop this drug, to help our communities, and most importantly to help our law enforcement officials. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman. I know of his great interest in this area. And I know of his great support for our law enforcement agencies to crack down on the methamphetamine labs. I know your chairman is having the same experience out in his State, too, as we are in Iowa. I understand that you and the chairman, and Senator Kohl, are working on putting all this together. Obviously, it would be my intention to withdraw the amendment if this whole thing gets worked out. I am sure that we will get it worked out. I thank the Senators.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Roberts and several other Members in introducing this legislation designed to establish national rules regarding standards, labeling and notification requirements for foods. The legislation recognizes the reality that we have a truly national system of food production, processing and distribution. Perhaps the most apparent reason for a national system of rules relating to regulation of foods involves the economic costs associated with complying with varying state requirements. The burden of satisfying a number of different, and perhaps conflicting, requirements throughout the country can be significant. Another aspect of the matter, though, involves the benefits to consumers. Certainly, when it comes to labeling and notification, I believe that consumers are entitled to have plenty of information that will help them make sound purchasing decisions for their families. I believe there can come a point, however, when a multitude of varying labeling and notification requirements can confuse consumers and be counterproductive with respect to helping them make sound choices. Accordingly, this bill would establish a framework for uniform national rules relating to food labeling, standards and notification requirements while recognizing the interest of the states in regulatory activities involving food. Under the bill, states would continue to have full authority in the area of food sanitation requirements. States could also petition for new national standards or exemption from established national standards and could take emergency action inconsistent with the national standards in the case of imminent hazards. States would continue to have full authority to establish and enforce standards relating to matters on which a national standard had not been set. In addition, the bill specifically identifies a number of types of labeling requirements as to which the states would continue to have full authority. The bill being introduced today is a sound starting point for further discussion and study, and for hearings that I hope can be scheduled soon. I am sure that during this process issues and considerations will arise that will need to be addressed in the legislation. I look forward to working with the Senator from Kansas and other colleagues toward producing a final bill that will achieve broad support and be enacted.