Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I believe the Record will show the Senator from Texas voted when the Balanced Budget Act passed the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague and compliment him on his leadership on this bill and all aspects of the bill, on research on crop insurance and food stamps. I listened with some amusement to my friend and colleague from Texas talking about this issue, saying that it is principle, that he is doing this on principle. I know we passed the Balanced Budget Act last year in the Senate. That extended from 5 to 7 years Medicaid and SSI to the same refugees and asylees we are talking about. I do not recall the Senator from Texas then offering an amendment to strike it out of the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't object, but I hope if we are going to go down this path that the other side be afforded equal opportunity to have additional time, if so requested. I don't request it, but in case somebody does request it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I thank all Senators for their strong vote in support of this legislation. Hopefully now we can get it to the President, and get his signature, and again reassure farmers all over the country that they will be able to renew their crop insurance programs for next year.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me just wrap up by again thanking Senators for the overwhelming vote that we just had. I think that vote will send a clear signal to the House to move very rapidly on the bill. We will get it down to the President and hopefully get this important conference report signed in very short order. I can just tell you, there will be a giant sigh of relief among the agriculture community from coast to coast and border to border as soon as this bill gets signed, because then we can get on to the business of getting our crop insurance policies renewed around the country and we can get on with the business of revamping, revising, and strengthening agricultural research throughout America. But the most important and most vital aspect of the bill in the immediate future is the Crop Insurance Program. Farmers will be assured right away that they will be able to continue their protection against disaster losses. Mr. President, let me again compliment and thank my chairman, Senator Lugar, first for his leadership on the ag research provisions of the bill. He has said many times that, entering the new century, we need to have a new approach, and new ways of doing our research in agriculture. He is absolutely right. I was happy and proud to support him in those efforts. It took quite a while to get the bill worked through the hearing processes, through negotiations in conference, getting all the issues worked out on research, but it was done, and we had good, bipartisan support. I believe the chairman has fashioned an Ag research bill that is really going to help us move ahead in the next century in producing new kinds of crops, new products from and uses for crops, in biotechnology, in improving agricultural productivity and natural resource protection. So I believe we will see a whole new focus and revitalization of our agricultural research. It is long overdue, but this bill will move us in that direction. I thank the chairman also for his leadership on crop insurance, in making sure that we addressed this need to provide that critical element of a safety net for farmers, because, as we all know, they need this crop insurance, both to cover disasters over which they have no control and also to make sure they have the collateral they need for obtaining financing for their farming operations. Farmers rely on crop insurance, and agricultural lenders rely on it. So, this provision is going to be very, very meaningful to make sure that farmers, and we here in Congress, do not have to be worrying every single year how we will find funding to continue crop insurance--and whether in fact farmers will have crop insurance. That is going to be a great relief to our farming community all over America. Finally, on the food stamp provisions, again, I thank the chairman for his great leadership in making sure we produced a sound bill and held together our coalition encompassing agricultural and nutrition matters. I also thank all the staff who worked very hard for a long time, for well over a year now, to get us to this point: Randy Green, our staff director; and Dave Johnson, chief counsel; Ms. Terri Nintemann on the majority side; on the minority side, Dan Smith, Mark Halverson, Phil Schwab and Richard Bender. There are a number of other staff. These are our leaders. They did a great job of pulling this bill together, keeping us on course and making sure we got to conference and got it all wrapped up. We are very blessed with a very good and very capable staff. I thank them for all the long hours and hard work they put in. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I believe the Senator voted aye when the Balanced Budget Act passed the Senate--maybe not on the conference report but when it passed the Senate. And that provision was in the Senate bill to extend it to 7 years. Secondly, the Senator from Texas may be philosophically opposed to food stamps. That is fine. That is his position--that may be his position. That is another debate for another time. We settled that in welfare reform, and we settled it in the Balanced Budget Act last year. All we are doing now is making food stamps compatible with Medicaid and SSI. So I hope the Senator would not hold our farmers hostage, because that is what is happening. We know full well, if this goes back to conference, it is dead. We have hundreds of thousands of farmers who need crop insurance this summer. Over 106,000 winter wheat policies right now will be up on September 30. Farmers all over the plains States will not be able to renew their policies. Many farmers use their crop insurance policies as collateral in order to secure an operating loan. So if we do not have that, thousands of farmers will not have access to the credit they need to get the crop in. That is why we need to pass this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. It is the fair and decent thing to do. Let us not kill this bill because of doing the fair and decent thing.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was trying to listen to the remarks of the Senator from Texas. It is hard to know where to begin to correct the mistakes that he made in his statements because there were so many. First of all, I say to the Senator from Texas that this was not a $500 million bill when it started. As a matter of fact, when it passed the Senate, it was a $1.3 billion bill and, in fact, it passed unanimously, so the Senator from Texas obviously voted for it. Secondly, I also point out that crop insurance has always been a mandatory program--always. In 1996, a small portion of it was made discretionary, but the basis of crop insurance has always been mandatory. So this is not some change in that program. Thirdly, I tell the Senator from Texas that food stamps has always been a part of this bill. It was a part of this bill when it passed our committee, and it was a part of the bill when it passed the Senate. Food stamps was used as an offset to pay for the research portion of the bill. So it was a part of the bill as an offset. The administration said if we are going to use it as an offset, we had to replace some of the nutrition programs, which I will get to. I also point out that the Senate-passed bill had nutrition provisions in it. It was not just a research bill, as the Senator from Texas has said. It had a provision in there to expand some child nutrition programs with an expanded breakfast grant program. That was taken out in conference, but it was in the Senate-passed bill. Lastly, I point out that in terms of the mandatory programs the Senator is talking about, the Fund for Rural America was part of the bill as passed in October, for which the Senator voted. It was in the bill at $300 million. Now it is only $100 million. So if the Senator from Texas supported it at $300 million, he shouldn't be too upset that it is now at $100 million. I wanted to make those corrections in the Record. I made my opening statement yesterday on the bill itself in terms of the important research and crop insurance provisions that are in it. Again, I commend my chairman, Senator Lugar, for all of his hard work in getting the whole research program revamped and restructured to meet the needs of the next century. Senator Lugar has been a leader in this effort. I was pleased to join him, and, again, I thank Senator Lugar for his close cooperation and for working together to get a really good research bill passed. I also commend Senator Lugar for his leadership in getting the necessary wherewithal to extend our Crop Insurance Program for the next 5 years. I daresay, without his strong leadership, we would not have the provisions that our farmers could rely on for their crop insurance this year. Again, if, in fact, this motion to recommit is successful, that is the end of this bill. Make no mistake about it, this is not just some motion to recommit to change a little bit. This is a motion to recommit to kill this bill. If this goes back to conference, I don't know that the votes are there to take out the food stamp provisions. Even if they are, it will never pass the House of Representatives, and certainly the Senator from Texas knows that. This is a careful compromise, a careful balance that was worked out in this bill. Let me get to the issue of the food stamps themselves. The Senator says it is like putting a big neon sign out there, ``Come to America.'' Well, let us take a look at that. What are we doing in this bill? What we are saying is that for refugees and asylees from religious persecution and political persecution, who cannot exist in their homelands because they are going to be tortured or killed, we say to them that if you come to America under a quota--we have a quota every year; not every refugee gets into this country; we have a quota--but if you get in under that quota, right now as a refugee you are eligible for food stamps and Medicaid and SSI. You are eligible for food stamps for the first 5 years, but you are not after that. And so what it says is that you can come in, you can get Medicaid, you can get SSI for up to 7 years, but you cannot get food stamps after 5 years. As a refugee, it takes 4 years and 9 months to be able to apply for citizenship. We know that, because of the backlog at INS, it takes at least 2 more years, maybe 3 years to get full citizenship. Let me also point out something else. These food stamps are not automatic. It does not mean because you are a refugee and you are here that you get food stamps. No. You still have to meet the requirements, the work requirements and the income requirements, to be able to qualify for food stamps like anyone else. So we are not talking about automatic food stamps. The 5-year period, the Senator is correct, was set in the welfare reform bill. But it did provide an exception for refugees and persons granted asylum. They would be able to receive food stamps for 5 years. In the Balanced Budget Act that we passed last year, we extended that for the elderly, the disabled, and the children of legal immigrants who were here in 1996. And then we looked at what we did. We looked at the 5-year period and said, this is unrealistic because a refugee who is here, as I said, has to be here 4 years and 9 months--and it takes 3, sometimes 4 more years to become a citizen. And it is impossible for a refugee to complete the citizenship process in less than 7 years. As I said, the Balanced Budget Act last year provided that in the case of Medicaid and SSI, refugees and asylees would be eligible to receive benefits for up to 7 years if they qualify. Not automatic. There is no neon sign. It says, if you qualify. There was bipartisan agreement on this point. Food stamps were not included because that bill came out of the Finance Committee, and food stamps is not under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. They are under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. And that is why we had to fix it here. Let me read from a letter from the Council of Jewish Federations that came to our office just today asking that we oppose Senator Gramm's motion. Let me just read one paragraph. It says: The welfare law provided a 5 year exemption from the bar on food stamps for refugees and asylees because Congress acknowledged that these individuals typically come to the U.S. with few, if any, resources. They have no sponsors to rely on and may have difficulty working because of disabilities. Those that can work may find that the training and skills they gained in their home countries are inadequate for most jobs here. As a result, many start in low paying jobs [so] they need food stamps to get an adequate diet. That is just it. These are refugees and asylees. They do not have sponsors. A lot of them come with a shirt on their back. Let me give you one example. Mr. Wang Dan, the young Chinese man who we have all been reading about, who has now come to this country, came with a shirt on his back. We know how he was persecuted and imprisoned in China. What this amendment says to Wang Dan is, OK, up to 5 years, if you fall on hard times--you have to otherwise qualify; you do not automatically get food stamps--but otherwise if you fall on hard times, yes, you can get some food stamps. But after 5 years--you have worked here; you have worked hard; you have applied for citizenship; it is in the bill; you are going to become a citizen in 2 or 3 years--all of a sudden you lose your job, you get sick, you fall on some hard times, sorry, no food stamps. Is that a neon sign? Not in any way. Not in any way. That is why, Mr. President, we have this letter from the Council of Jewish Federations, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, and also a letter from John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York, also asking us to support the restoration of food stamp eligibility in this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. By unanimous consent, yesterday, we were supposed to come up with the research bill at 11 o'clock. We are up against kind of a time problem here. I would like to have some idea as to how soon that will happen. I see the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is here. We are here to begin our debate. I wonder how much longer can we expect to wait.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the conference report be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I just want to concur in the unanimous consent agreement and commend my chairman, Senator Lugar, for his leadership on this bill. This is an extremely important bill. We should have gotten it through a long time ago. There are farmers out in my area of the country, all up and down the Midwest--I am sure in the Senator's home State also--who have contracts up this summer on crop insurance, and if we don't hurry up and get this through, we are going to be in big trouble; we will not have the money for the crop insurance program to allow these farmers to renew their contracts for next year. So it is imperative that we do get it through. If this bill were to be recommitted--and I will have more to say about this tomorrow, but I wanted to talk about this a little here--I think that would be the end of the bill. We tried for a long time in conference to get to this point. It is a delicate balance of many interests, but it is a good balance. It is one that balances all of the interests in all sections of the country. It advances the cause of agricultural research; it does the job of providing the necessary funds to keep the crop insurance program going; and it also fills in the gap on the food stamps for legal immigrants, elderly, disabled, and children, and also refugees and asylees who are in this country. Madam President, as I said, the conference report of the Agricultural Research Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 represents a strong statement by the Senate on the importance of research to the future of American agriculture and fulfills important promises to restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants, refugees, and asylees, and to fully fund the crop insurance program. Again, I am pleased that both sides of the aisle in both the House and the Senate have come together to invest in the future of agriculture in rural communities as well as nutrition programs for needy individuals who were unfairly cut off from food stamp benefits in the welfare reform bill that we passed in 1996. I again commend Chairman Lugar for his diligent and tireless efforts to, first of all, get the changes made in the research program that we so vitally need in this country in our ag research program, and his efforts to get the bill through, and through conference, and to the point where we are now. Chairman Lugar has done a great job in guiding and directing and leading us in a bipartisan fashion to get the bill through. We have had great cooperation. I am thankful to him for the great cooperation he has given me as the ranking member, and to his staff for the many kindnesses that his staff has afforded our staff. I also commend our colleagues in the House for assisting and aiding us getting this bill through. I am especially pleased that the agriculture, nutrition and immigrant communities are united in support of this conference report. Reinforcing the strong support for this bill, on April 24, 71 Senators sent a letter to the leadership asking that we bring up this bill and pass it. Madam President, 71 Senators signed a letter to the majority leader of the Senate asking we bring up this bill and pass it. So I hope we can move quickly on this vital piece of legislation. Let me just mention the three components of the bill. First, the issue of food stamps. This bill will spend about $816 million over the next 5 years to restore food stamp eligibility for nearly 250,000 individuals. Again, with this action we have reaffirmed our compassion and our priority for taking care of the most vulnerable in our society. The bill takes a major step towards fulfilling a promise that was made by our President and many of us here in the Congress on both sides of the aisle to correct inequities made in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. What we have done in this bill, Madam President, mirrors the changes made in last year's balanced budget agreement. That bill eliminated eligibility for several classes of legal immigrants for food stamps. Refugees, asylees, elderly and disabled legal immigrants and their children, Hmong refugees and certain native Americans who were unfairly denied food stamp benefits will once again be eligible for this important food assistance under this bill before us. I might also add, parenthetically, that it is not just compassion, but it is dollar wise. We know in the past when these people are cut off from the needed food stamps, the elderly and the disabled, their kids are cut off, and when they lack nutrition, where do they end up? They are at the emergency room door of our hospitals, and we pay for that. Better we put some money into adequate food and nutrition to keep them healthy in the first place rather than pay for the needed medical services they would require later on. Under research and rural development, the research provisions of this bill will ensure that our farmers and ranchers have the word's best science and technology at their disposal to produce food and fiber, to protect the environment, and to create rural economic opportunities. In this regard, we are devoting $600 million in new funds over the next 5 years to advance the science and technology underlying our agricultural system. This new initiative will invest in priority research topics like food safety, biotechnology and environmental quality. There are new incentives for the development of new crops and new uses for existing crops. Finally, modest reforms in the land grant system will help it to remain a leader in research, education and outreach in the coming century. We have also extended the Fund for Rural America through the year 2002, and we have reaffirmed our commitment to the pressing development needs of our rural communities. This fund was a key component of the 1996 farm bill, created to provide funds to help farmers in rural communities to transition to the new farm policy environment. Although I wish we could have found more funds for this purpose, I am pleased that over the next 5 years, an additional $100 million was added to the Fund for Rural America. Finally, the third component of the bill is crop insurance. Since the last Crop Insurance Reform Act in 1994, participation in crop insurance has more than doubled in our country. Without agreement to this conference report, millions of farmers face the possibility of canceled insurance policies in just the next few months. That would leave them without risk protection for the 1999 crop season. The action we have taken in this bill will secure funding for the Crop Insurance Program for the next 5 years. It will set the stage also for a vigorous debate about how to further restructure and reform the program in the coming years. I look forward to working with Chairman Lugar in moving that discussion and that debate forward. The more tools and options we can give our farmers to manage the risks of production, the more resilient our rural communities will be in the face of market and weather fluctuations. So this conference report accomplishes a great deal in a single package. We have let the world know that we care about the vulnerable in our society, those who are refugees and asylees who are escaping persecution--many times religious persecution in other countries. A lot of times when they come here, they don't have a million dollars in their pockets. Usually those aren't the kind of people who are persecuted. But those who are persecuted for religious beliefs or otherwise, a lot of times who flee their countries, who come here, they don't have a lot of money. They need an education. And, yes, we provide them food assistance. I think that is a part of what we ought to be about in this country. What this bill does is it restores it. We say to those people, if you are escaping intolerable situations in other parts of the world, our doors will be open to refugees and asylees, and we are going to assure that you have adequate nutrition to get you to the point where you can apply for citizenship. Second, we have let the world know we are serious about equipping American agriculture for future food production challenges. We have taken the steps to assure the taxpayers that research dollars are expended in the most efficient manner. Finally, we ensure that our farmers will have good risk management tools available to them. We have done all of this in a very strong, bipartisan manner. We can all take pride in the fact that today we have made a significant investment in a better future, not only for our farmers and ranchers, but also in a better future for an increasingly crowded and hungry world. So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to agree to this conference report without delay. Madam President, I will have more to say tomorrow about the pending amendment by the Senator from Texas, who as I understand, would exempt from the coverage of the Food Stamp Program, refugees and asylees who come to this country after, I think it is August of 1996, if I am not mistaken. I think that would just be the wrong step to take, first of all, for a compassionate and caring society, and for those of us who care about asylees and refugees. I think that covers both political parties, and certainly covers all of the religious institutions in America. I know I received letters from--I know Cardinal O'Connor in New York, from many members of the Jewish faith, other Christian faiths who have written to us asking us to please make this fix in food stamps to cover these very vulnerable people who are in our society. And, second, I would just say again, if the amendment contemplated by the Senator from Texas were to be successful, that is referring this back to conference committee, that would be the end of this bill. Make no mistake about it. The amendment that I have seen written and proposed--he has not offered it yet, but as proposed by the Senator from Texas--would kill this bill. It would kill the research provisions of this bill and it could kill the crop insurance provisions of this bill along with the food stamp provisions. Why do I say that? For two reasons. First, because we worked long and hard to get to this point in a bipartisan fashion. There were long, serious discussions both in the Senate and in the House and in conference, and we reached our agreements and we have strong bipartisan support for this. If this were to go back to the conference committee-- one, either the conference committee would not or could not make these changes, and thus the bill would die in conference; or if the conference committee voted to make these changes and it went back to the House, there is no way that it would succeed in the House. Maybe it wouldn't even succeed in the Senate. I don't know. But, Madam President, I have been on the Agriculture Committee now, both in the House and the Senate, for 23 years. I have been through a lot of farm bills and a lot of farm bill amendments and modifications. And we have for a long time had a good working relationship with our urban friends in keeping a good, strong coalition together to both answer the needs of those of us who represent rural America and to answer the needs of those who represent urban America. I believe it has been a good working relationship. When we look at it, hunger in America is almost nonexistent. Yes, we have some gaps out there. Yes, we have some nutritional gaps out there, but compared to any other country, we are light-years ahead. We provide the needed nutrition from the School Breakfast Program to the School Lunch Program to afternoon programs to the Food Stamp Program to Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, and then we provide support for our food banks and our soup kitchens and feeding facilities around the country along with the private sector. We have taken care to address the nutritional needs of those who live in our urban areas, and we have taken care of the needs of those who live in our rural areas. As I said, part of this bill is funds for rural America that helps continue to invest in rural economic development so our people who live in small towns and communities will have the kind of jobs and support they need. Our farmers will have the risk management tools and crop insurance they will need to provide the food and fiber for America. It has been a good coalition, a healthy coalition. The amendment contemplated by the Senator from Texas will tear that coalition apart. That is why I say, if it were to succeed--I don't think it will, I hope it won't, I don't think it will--if it were, that would be the end of this bill. I am hopeful, and I know the Senator from Texas is sincere in what he is trying to do--I happen to disagree with him, deeply disagree--that we ought to carve out asylees and refugees from the food stamp provisions of this bill. Be that as it may, I still suggest that this amendment really is a basic amendment that will kill this bill. We can't afford to have that happen. I hope all my colleagues will support the chairman and support others on both sides of the aisle who signed the letter to bring up the bill and to pass it as it is. If we do that, I think we can have a swift conclusion of this bill tomorrow, get it down to the President for his signature, our farmers can go ahead and get their crop insurance contracts renewed, we can begin the process of changing our research system, and we can meet the nutritional needs of the most vulnerable in our society. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1579, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, of which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. I would like to commend Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Kennedy, and Wellstone, for making reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act a priority, and for including this legislation as an amendment to the Workforce legislation. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program provides $2.2 billion in formula grant assistance to States to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment. Since established by the Smith-Fess act 75 years ago, state vocational rehabilitation programs have served some nine million people. This program promotes economic independence for people with disabilities, and the numbers reflect that. In 1992, Congress made major changes to the Act, namely, increasing consumer participation, streamlining processes, and reducing unnecessary paperwork. In the bill before us today, we have built on the '92 amendments. The bill preserves and strengthens the themes of the '92 amendments, while fine-tuning and aligning the Act with other workforce reforms. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 strengthen the role of the consumer throughout the vocational rehabilitation process, particularly in the development of the individual's employment plan. This reauthorization reduces unnecessary burdens on State VR agencies by streamlining the State plan; indeed, the bill reduces the 36 State plan requirements in current law to 24. The bill also refocuses the State plan on improving outcomes for individuals with disabilities by requiring States to develop, jointly with the State Rehabilitation Council, annual goals and strategies for improving results. Access of Social Security beneficiaries to VR services is facilitated, and unnecessary gatekeeping is eliminated, by making SSI and SSDI beneficiaries presumptively eligible for services under the VR States Grants program. This change will eliminate the need for the VR agency to determine on a case-by-case basis whether individuals ``require'' VR services in order to gain employment. Under this bill, if a person receiving SSI or SSDI walks through the door of a VR agency, that person will be presumed eligible for VR services. As the Administrator of the Iowa VR agency explained to me, ``now we don't have to spend time and money determining whether an individual on SSI or SSDI is eligible for services. Instead, we can focus our resources where they should be focused--on assisting our consumers in obtaining employment.'' Of particular interest to me and to Senator Dodd are the changes to Section 508 of the Act, which pertain to electronic and information technology accessibility. This section will make it easier for individuals with disabilities who are federal employees to obtain the assistive technology they need in order to do their jobs. Finally, this bill widens employment opportunities for people with disabilities by establishing linkages with larger statewide workforce systems. I would like to point out, however, as Senators Jeffords, DeWine, and Kennedy already have, that vocational rehabilitation agencies will not be required to spend any of their federal allotment on activities other than those that help provide jobs for people with disabilities. In sum, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 bring us closer to the goal of fostering independence for people with disabilities by providing them with the services they need in order to enter the workforce. I would like to thank Senators DeWine, Jeffords, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Dodd, and the Clinton Administration, for their leadership in developing this bill in a bipartisan manner. I also would like to commend all the staff members who worked on this bill. Without their tireless efforts, we would never have been able to bring this important reauthorization to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator saying that. I have not met Mr. Matlock or talked to him personally. It is nice to know that even yet today he feels the same way. With words from respected people like Matlock, and with concerns such as what I have pointed out this evening in this amendment, more opposition has come out in editorials around the country opposed to NATO expansion. The Des Moines Register, the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Houston Chronicle--spanning the spectrum of the country geographically, spanning the spectrum of the country, philosophically and ideologically. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some of these editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that very much.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would have more articles, but I believe these are representative, geographically and philosophically, as to why we should not be rushing to expand NATO. I will close by saying that I will withdraw my amendment, but I wanted to lay it down as a marker. We are going to hear more about the NATO expansion treaty and what it will mean to the nonproliferation treaty with our sharing of nuclear knowledge with these three countries, all of whom, I might point out, are signatories to the NPT. I think therein lies a dilemma. To this Senator's way of thinking, I believe the NPT is more important to us and more important to the world community than the expansion of NATO to include these three countries. Again, as Barbara Tuchman said in ``The March of Folly,'' ``I believe we are rushing into this without considering all of its ramifications, especially with nonproliferation.'' So, Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President. This amendment just urges that the President should propose that NATO examine the compatibility of its nuclear-weapons-sharing programs with our obligations under the NPT, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The NPT is one of our most important international agreements. Not only is the United States a member of the NPT regime, we were a strong leader in establishing the treaty. Its purpose, of course, is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Through a series of provisions, it helps halt the spread of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons knowledge. That is the important part of this--the nuclear weapons knowledge. The nonaligned members of the NPT have expressed great concern over NATO's nuclear-sharing programs. Let me make it clear. The United States has nuclear weapons at U.S. bases in NATO nations. In time of war the United States could release these nuclear weapons to these allied nations. Of course, in peacetime our allies do not have control over them. We retain control. However, we do assist in training foreign militaries in nuclear-use capabilities. For example, we train our NATO ally pilots how to drop nuclear weapons. We train their ground crews on how to store nuclear weapons and how to load them onto aircraft. And 110 nations have expressed concern over NATO's expansion impact on the NPT. The first indication of this, Mr. President, was in an article that appeared in Defense News, on March 30, saying that: ``The 113 members of the so-called nonaligned movement, none of which have nuclear weapons, have asked conference leaders at the meeting to discuss assurances for parties to the NPT that they will not be targeted by nuclear weapons.'' Stephen Young, of the British American Security Information Council was quoted in the article as adding, ``If NATO won't give nuclear weapons up, and in fact continues to publicly declare nuclear weapons as part of its strategy for the future of the alliance, the fear is that some states that do not currently have nuclear weapons may become frustrated and decide to acquire them for protection.'' Now, we have a news release from the same organization that came in just yesterday that stated that: ``At the meeting of the member states of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty''--in Geneva on April 28, just 2 days ago, 110 nations of the nonaligned movement--``demanded an end to NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements.'' A working paper representing the position of more than 110 states demands that--and I quote--``the nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT refrain from, among themselves, with non-nuclear weapons states, and with states not party to the treaty, nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements.'' Well, NATO is the only alliance which operates nuclear-sharing arrangements. Under these arrangements, somewhere between 150 to 200 U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed in the six European States: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. NATO countries, of course, have always maintained that NATO nuclear sharing is legal under the NPT because it does not involve the actual transfer of nuclear weapons unless a decision was made to go to war. However, the NPT regime also involves, as I stated earlier, the sharing of nuclear knowledge. So I think it is a well-grounded concern of the nonaligned nations to express their concerns about the expansion of NATO and the fact that we will begin sharing nuclear knowledge with the three new member nations. I think their fears are well founded and worth considering. Will we now, of course, with the addition of these three new nations, begin to share this nuclear knowledge? Are these three new nations full and absolute partners of NATO--as many have said here on the floor during the course of the debate, that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic should not be second-class NATO partners but should have all of the rights, obligations, and powers inherent in any NATO member nation? If that is the case, then certainly we will begin to share nuclear knowledge with those three countries. I believe, Mr. President, that this could fly in the face of our obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Therein lies the conundrum. If we do proceed with NATO expansion--and it obviously looks like the votes will be here to do that--and if these three nations become full partners in NATO, as many have said they should, and obviously they will under the reading of the protocols, we then will proceed to share nuclear knowledge with those three nations. And what of nuclear capabilities? I am not saying that we will turn over control of nuclear weapons--we have not yet done that to any nation of NATO--but we could get to the point where we might turn over nuclear weapons to those three nations if, in fact, conditions warrant it. There is one other aspect--and I was going to offer another amendment, but I will not--the use and stationing of dual-use aircraft in these countries. Again, as members of NATO, we will be stationing aircraft in the countries that have dual uses. They can be used for conventional weapons delivery, but if fitted with the proper hard points and racks, they can also be used for nuclear weapons delivery. And will we then proceed to train ground crews and pilots in those countries in the delivery of these nuclear weapons, in their storage, and in their handling and loading capabilities? Again, I believe that we may do something which probably a lot of Senators have not thought about. That is how NATO expansion affects our obligations and our stated interest in the nonproliferation treaty. So I am hopeful that the President will give due consideration to this. Quite frankly, I don't know what the President can do. Either we are going to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the NPT and not share nuclear knowledge and capabilities and training with the three countries coming in, or we will share nuclear capabilities, knowledge, and training with these countries, and violate the letter and the spirit of the nonproliferation treaty. You can't have it both ways. Another reason why I believe this rush to approve these three nations' accession into NATO is a march to folly--to quote the Senator from Arkansas, who last night quoted Barbara Tuchman's book, ``The March to Folly''--is that it just seems that the expansion has not been fully thought through, especially in the nuclear regime. If in fact we go ahead down that course, what then will Russia say? I know a lot of people have said, ``Well, Russia, understands what we are doing; they haven't raised a lot of objections.'' They have raised some. Again, as Senator Bumpers said last night, it is not now, it is when the elections are going to be held in Russia. That is when the hard- line right-wingers and the Communists will come out and say, see, we told you so. They will say that an expanded NATO in violation of oral assurances given to Mr. Gorbachev. Not only that, they could say that we have violated the nonproliferation treaty by providing nuclear capabilities to those three countries. Right now, the Duma has already delayed ratification of the START II treaty. Nationalist elements have begun to gain power by accusing members of the democratic party with appeasement of the West. This will just give them another bullet in their arsenal in arguing that, in fact, Russia should change its course of action. I was interested that former Ambassador Matlock, former Ambassador to the Soviet Union under the Bush administration, opposes NATO expansion. He stated, NATO expansion ``may go down in history as the most profound strategic plunder made since the end of the cold war.'' Ambassador Matlock further stated NATO enlargement ``fails to take account of the real international situation following the end of the cold war, and proceeds in accord with the logic that made sense during the cold war.'' I agree with those words of Ambassador Matlock. I don't know Ambassador Matlock, never met him, as far as I know, but I think he has given us wise counsel. He is joined by many others across the Nation. I have watched this debate unfold over the course of the last few months. As more and more knowledge has gotten out around the country as to what NATO expansion really entails, the possibility of derailing START II talks, the unknown factor of what the costs are eventually going to be, the fact that once we have opened this door and with, I am sorry to say, the defeat of the Warner amendment--it was close--with the defeat of his amendment, you can bet your bottom dollar next year elements within our country will start pushing for new nations to be brought into the NATO umbrella. How will we respond to those? By saying that they are less worthy that Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic? Will we say that somehow they are not ready, that we are going to have this hard dividing line in Europe? So it is going to exacerbate and cause even more tensions in Europe in the future.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, now we get two sides. It seems to me if there is a meeting with the Secretary of State--it was James Baker at the time--and Mr. Gorbachev and our Ambassador, there would have been--there has been at every meeting I have been to--a memorandum called MEMCOMS were sent back to the State Department. I wonder if we can produce the MEMCOMS so we can look at those and see what did transpire.

Mr. HARKIN. Who?

Mr. HARKIN. Would the committee ask for that?

Mr. HARKIN. This is a pretty significant debate.

Mr. HARKIN. My experience in my years here is that the distinguished chairman of the committee has been very successful in getting documents and papers out of the State Department in the past. I would hope that the committee would at least try to get these MEMCOMS so we can see what the facts are.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry. Will there be a series of votes?

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Are we proceeding on the basis of a unanimous consent request that was entered into earlier to vote at 7 o'clock?