Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Well----

Mr. HARKIN. I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as I may consume for opening comments and then reserve some time for others on the amendment. Mr. President, we are, as the Senate and the country now know, debating the issue of whether or not the Senate will advise and consent to the President's signature on a proposal to bring three more nations into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. While I was not present yesterday in this Chamber, I did watch some of the debate that unfolded yesterday, and I think the debate is taking a good course of action. The debate yesterday was a good debate. I hope that the debate today will continue along those lines. In other words, what I mean by that is not just people giving a speech and then walking off the floor but where we can actually engage one another in asking and answering questions about the implications of the NATO treaty. So I hope that will be the course of action during the Senate's responsibility to advise and consent here. Mr. President, I want to make some extended remarks about the whole picture of NATO expansion, but I will just talk very briefly right now about the amendment I sent to the desk. Basically, I think one of the most important issues facing us on NATO expansion is what it is going to cost, what it will cost the taxpayers of this country. So what I have sent to the desk is an amendment that will hopefully clear this up a little bit and provide for an accurate accounting of all of the expenses incident to the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And I will have more to say about that a little bit later. Concerns about the extension of our military obligations--and let's again be frank about this; NATO is a military alliance--have been voiced by Senators and interest groups, academics across the political spectrum, and when the voices expressing caution include Republicans and Democrats and progressives and conservatives, libertarians and others, such a diverse opposition may be a sign that we ought to really act very deliberately and deliberatively on this issue. So I am glad the debate has finally begun, and as I said, I am delighted with the course of action in the debate. At the outset, I hope the Senate would not simply rubber stamp this bill that we have before us. We have a constitutional responsibility to both advise and consent on treaties. This is a responsibility that is taken seriously by every Senator and ought to because, as you know, under our Constitution a treaty overrides the Constitution. So anytime we advise and consent on a treaty, we are advising and consenting on a document that basically overrides much of our Constitution. So we have to be very careful about this. There are important issues to consider in NATO expansion-- burdensharing, command and coordination, responses to real and perceived threats, even the basic questions of mission and scope of the organization itself. They are not simple questions that lend themselves to a simple, sound bite debate. These questions and their answers will shape for better or worse our defense and foreign policy options for decades to come. There is no doubt that NATO has been one of the greatest military alliance success stories in our Nation's history. And, again, at the outset we have to ask the question. Here is an organization founded in 1949 shortly after the end of the Second World War--the Second World War in this century--when 12 countries signed the North Atlantic treaty to establish the military alliance known as NATO. Now, let's face it. The reason for NATO was the Soviet Union. The reason for being in that alliance, and also to preserve the nations of Europe together, was to preclude any possibility of cross-border excursions by European countries. The treaty had as its goal ``to unite their efforts for collective defense and the preservation of peace and security in Europe.'' Four nations have been added. Spain, the most recent, joined in 1982. So, again, it has been a success. It has kept the peace in Europe for nearly 50 years, both by deterring aggression by the Warsaw Pact and by encouraging cooperation between its members. I must say, due to the commitment of its members and the leadership of the United States, NATO has largely fulfilled the reason for its very birth--the demise of the Soviet Union. So we have to, I think, at the outset, say, if something was born because of the Soviet Union and it has succeeded, what, then, are the reasons not only for continuing it but for expanding it? And, subsequently, are there better and other ways in which we can fulfill other goals, such as democracy, economic progress, market-based economies, and integration of the countries of Europe into one economic entity? So, what role will NATO play in a new century? And what is the cost going to be in financial terms? And what is the cost going to be in other less tangible areas, like the potential for strained relations with nonmember nations? Or what will the cost be in a dangerous rollback, perhaps, of nuclear arms control and nonproliferation progress made since the end of the cold war? By the administration's own admission, ``Enlargement will take place in a European security environment in which there is no current threat of large-scale conventional aggression and where any such threat would take years to develop.'' This is from the administration's own admission. There is no current threat and any threat would take years to develop. In response to questions from many Senators, the administration reiterated this point when they wrote, ``Current members and prospective new members face no imminent threat of attack.'' This seems to be one of the few issues on NATO expansion where we can find wide consensus. There is no large-scale external threat, including Russia. They just don't exist. The administration's expectation for the role of an expanded NATO include: No. 1, helping to deter future threats; No. 2, expanding our collective defense capabilities to respond to both traditional and nontraditional security challenges; and, No. 3, helping to support and stabilize emerging democracies. I agree that these are goals that the United States should pursue. They are worthwhile goals. But again I ask, is NATO the proper framework in which to accomplish these goals? Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have legitimate concerns about protecting their borders and their national sovereignty. After all, they persevered through a century of invasions and decades of outside control by a large and powerful neighbor. But, again, let me also say that I remember when I happened to be in Moscow shortly after the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union was breaking up, I remember one of the Russian Members of the Duma telling me that, ``You think you were the victims of the Soviet Union. You think Europe was the victim of the Soviet Union,'' he said. ``We Russians were the biggest victims of the Communist Soviet Union.'' So we have to think about it in that context also; of Russia, and of them coming out from underneath the yoke of a Soviet Communist empire. Think about Russia, also, in terms of its history, when it has gone, also, through a century of invasions and decades of control by a power not necessarily of Russian being. I learned a lot about what countries in this region had endured. Last year I attended the dedication of the National Czech and Slovak Museum in Cedar Rapids, IA. It is interesting. I was there with President Clinton and Ambassador Madeleine Albright, who was then-Ambassador to the United Nations, President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic, and President Kovac of the Republic of Slovakia. Again, these people of these nations have shown a commitment and resilience to the democratic ideals during the economic and political transition. They are working in concert with the community of nations and peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, in Iraq also. I want to commend and recognize their efforts. That is all well and good. But is that a reason to expand NATO? I am not convinced it is the most appropriate vehicle that we can use to get the goals of security, stability, political reform, and economic integration with the West sought by these newly free countries. I am really worried we are buying into a mentality that has its roots in the cold war, and not the mentality that is looking ahead to the next century. Yes, it is true that Europe has sustained decades, almost a century, of warfare, invasions, domination and oppression by the people of Eastern Europe. This approach to foreign policy would be appropriate if the world climate was similar to what it was, say, before World War II. But the world has changed. To those who say that, well, we can have another cross-border invasion by a country in Europe against another country, even the administration admits this is not going to happen. This would not happen for years. It would take years for anything like this to develop. You are not about to see any headlines exclaiming that Russian troops are marching toward Poland or Czechoslovakia. The czars are gone. The Third Reich is gone. Germany is united as a democracy. Again, we need to reorient ourselves to the realities of the 21st century where the security threats are not czars and Hitlers and people like that, but are more likely to be rogue nations, international terrorists, and, as we have seen again in Europe, internal ethnic clashes. For example, the security threat of most concern to Europe now is Bosnia and Kosovo. There is also the so-called nontraditional threat-- terrorism, chemical, biological weapons. Again, we need to consider, is NATO the best way to deal with these challenges? But my primary concern now, and with this amendment, is the cost. In February of 1997, the administration estimated the total cost of between $27 to $35 billion, of which the U.S. share would be $1.5 to $2 billion. In December, NATO released their own study with the astonishingly low total cost estimate of $1.5 billion. Well, then the Clinton administration revised their initial projections down to reflect the NATO estimate of $1.5 billion. Some would argue that comparing these numbers is like comparing apples and oranges--I heard that--because of the different assumptions and scenarios. But I would argue that is exactly the point. We do not have any consensus or concrete ideas on what posture NATO will take in the future and at what cost. I have a chart here that shows basically the varying cost estimates so we get an idea of just how widely divergent they are. NATO, as I said, estimates $1.5 billion. The Clinton administration initially, as I said, came in last year--a year ago--at $27 to $35 billion. Now the administration says it is $1.5 billion. They just picked up the NATO estimate. CBO has given us a range of $21 to $125 billion. The Rand Corporation says it is $10 to $110 billion. As I said, the first Clinton administration estimate was $27 billion to $35 billion--to $1.5 billion. So we go from $1.5 billion to $125 billion. Where is it? How much of this will the U.S. taxpayers have to pick up? The GAO issued a report late last fall, the title of which explains my concerns and the reason for this amendment. It says, ``NATO Enlargement Cost Implications for the United States Remain Unclear.'' Now, much of the uncertainty is because--a quote from the GAO report--``It will not be until June of 1998 that NATO will make decisions about whether or how much to increase the common budgets which would then be shared among current and new members. Until this has been done, the implications for the U.S. contributions to NATO's common budgets will be unclear.'' Now, again, this is one reason why several other Senators and I asked for a delay in voting on NATO expansion. I felt and some others felt that we should have delayed this until this summer. We are not going to get this NATO estimate until at least June of this year. So why should we be voting on a blank check for the American taxpayer before we have the data? What is the rush? Why could we not wait until this summer until we get the NATO decisions on how much they want to increase their common budgets? The same GAO report went on to discuss the financing for commonly funded items, such as the needed infrastructure to send reinforcements to new allies in times of crisis, communications systems, or interoperability with NATO's air defense system. None has been agreed to yet. None of it has been agreed upon yet. Again, from the GAO report: ``Whether they will be financed within existing budgets or by increasing the size of NATO's common budgets will not be determined until June of 1998.'' That is from the GAO report. I am hopeful that the managers of the bill would engage with us in discussing why we would go ahead with this before we have this data that NATO will come up with in June of 1998. So that is a missing piece of the puzzle right there. Another piece of the puzzle we are missing is how new members are to address their military shortfalls. The countries' force goals will not be set again until this spring. In other words, we are without a plan to address the force goals and the price tag associated with it. Again, I and others are uncomfortable signing the American taxpayers' names to a potentially ballooning blank check, so that is a second part of this puzzle that I believe is missing. The GAO concluded that while DOD's key assumptions were reasonable, their ``cost estimates'' are speculative. ``NATO enlargement could entail costs in addition to those included in DOD's estimate, including costs for assistance to enhance the PFP or other bilateral assistance for countries not invited to join NATO in July 1997.'' So, in other words, it is not just those countries invited to join. What about the cost for assistance and other vital assistance for all of the other countries not invited to join in July 1997?

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to briefly touch on an issue the Senator from Connecticut mentioned, and that is lobbying by defense contractors. At the outset, I want to say that I have not been contacted by any either. I don't know that my staff has; at least they haven't told me that. I respond by reading from an article that appeared in the New York Times on March 30, which I obviously got off the Internet, in which the writer of the article went on to say that ``The chief vehicle of support for NATO expansion is a group called `The U.S. Committee to Expand NATO'.'' The president of that innocent-sounding group is Bruce Jackson, director of strategic planning for Lockheed, a vice president for Lockheed for strategic planning. Mr. President, again, a lot of these people have been championing NATO membership for these countries. He quoted me as saying that ``This may amount to `a Marshall Plan' for defense contractors who are chomping at the bit to sell weapons and make profits.'' Well, I am a Democrat, and it says, ``A top Republican aide joked that the arms makers were so eager for NATO expansion, we will probably be giving landlocked Hungary a new navy.'' Those are just musings and comments by various and sundry people. Again, this gets back to the question of whether or not we are going to ask the taxpayers of this country to provide subsidies over, above, and beyond what they kind of have been told in terms of NATO expansion as to what the costs would be. Yes, if these countries are going to upgrade their weapons system, sure. Do I want our defense contractors to be in there to provide them the necessary resources they need for defense? Absolutely. But do I want them there when the taxpayers say-- as I pointed out to my friend from Connecticut, which we have seen so often in the past, for one of those countries may say that we need a certain system and it cost $1.98. Since there is no limit on the subsidies, one of our contractors could come in and say: You don't need the $1.98 one, you need the $100 version. Hungry, Poland, or the Czech Republic may say: We can't afford that. The contractor may say: Not to worry. You see, under the situation we have now, the U.S. taxpayers will provide the subsidy for it and you can go ahead and have it. Once again, our taxpayers are stuck with it. I think that is the normal course. If there is a crisis, as has been stated many times, well, this would hamstring us in terms of a crisis. Again, I point out that no one is saying there is any imminent threat of any crisis at all. The administration says that for years ahead Russia is no threat. So if, in fact, a crisis comes up in the future--in the distant future--we have time to react, we have time on both the authorizing committee and on the appropriating committee to make changes, to make sure these countries have the adequate and necessary defense capabilities to defend themselves. But to just give a blank check now, I think, is wrong. I think it will cost the taxpayers of this country untold billions of dollars, unless we put the same cap on our subsidies for national expenses that we have on the common costs. We have agreed with our fellow member nations in NATO that on the common costs we would provide about 25 percent. I see no reason why that same logic cannot prevail and be used to cap our exposure on the national costs. In fact, I have gotten an idea this morning that I may offer another amendment to this bill, and that is to get other member countries of NATO to also agree that their subsidies, their proportion of the national costs, would not exceed what their proportion is under the common costs. Now, we cannot force them to do that, but it seems to me that should be one of the negotiating principles that we would use with other countries when they want to expand and enlarge NATO. In fact, it kind of comes as a surprise to me that we did not do that in the beginning. If we really want honest accounting, and we want the European countries that are quite wealthy now to bear their fair share of the costs, it seems to me that we should have insisted in the beginning that the same proportionality that pertains to the common costs should pertain to the national costs. To me, this is a gaping hole, and the first place to close it is here with this bill, by saying that the United States will provide no more than its 25-percent share of those national costs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just over two years ago I stood on this floor as the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of a historic rewrite of the 1934 telecommunications act. We were told at that time that the act would bring the benefits of competition in local telephone exchange service--better service and lower prices for the American consumer. One part of that legislation in which I had a personal interest were the provisions concerning the burglar and fire alarm industry--a highly competitive industry still dominated by small businesses. Many of us, both in the House and the Senate, feared that allowing the Regional Bells to enter the market prior to real competition in the local telephone exchanges would result in the Bells using their business monopolies and vast financial resources to drive small alarm dealers out of business. That is why Congress adopted a five year transitional waiting period before the Bells could enter the alarm monitoring business. The bill made an exception for Ameritech. The Ameritech exception was included because Ameritech had already purchased two large alarm companies--before the bill was passed. However, these acquisitions were quite controversial because they were made during a time when all of the Bells had agreed not to enter this line of business until the legislative rules had been established. Only Ameritech broke that understanding. Nonetheless, the Congress felt it was better to grandfather those acquisitions rather than to force a divestiture. However, in order to insure that we were not granting a five year competitive advantage to Ameritech over the other Bells, who had kept their pledge not to enter the business, we specifically prohibited further growth by acquisition during the five year transition period. We, in effect, told Ameritech that it could stay in the alarm monitoring business, but that its growth would be restricted to direct marketing to customers. And, to make our intentions crystal clear, several Senators, including then Majority Leader Bob Dole, engaged in a floor colloquy on the subject when the bill was being considered. At one point I said: There is one issue which deserves some additional clarification. The bill and the report language clearly prohibit any Bell company already in the industry from purchasing another alarm company for 5 years from date of enactment. However, it is not entirely clear whether such a Bell could circumvent the prohibition by purchasing the underlying customer accounts and assets of an alarm company, but not the company itself. It was my understanding that the conferees intended to prohibit for 5 years the acquisition of other alarm companies in any form, including the purchases of customer accounts and assets. The two managers of the bill, Commerce Committee Chairman Pressler and Ranking member Hollings, both agreed on the record that my understanding was correct. Despite that clarification in the formal proceedings, Ameritech disregarded Congressional intent. Soon after passage of the bill, Ameritech went out and purchased the customer accounts and assets of Circuit City's alarm monitoring division. When the alarm industry challenged Ameritech's action, a divided FCC Committee supported Ameritech. For reasons I don't understand, all the commissioners--except for Susan Ness in a vehement dissent--said that purchasing the customer accounts and assets was permissible so long as Ameritech did not purchase any of the stock. This opened the flood gate. During the next 16 months, Ameritech purchased over 550,000 customers by acquiring the assets and customer accounts of: Republic Industries alarm division, the 7th largest company in the alarm industry; Rollins, the 10th largest company in the industry; Masada, the 20th largest company in the industry; Central Control and Alarm, the 40th largest company in the industry; and Norman, the 46th largest company in the industry. This acquisition binge was exactly what Congress wanted to avoid when it created the five year transitional waiting period. The industry's fears of market domination by those companies which control the local telephone exchanges--the alarm industry's lifeline--have proven to be justified. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, just before Congress embarked on its effort to transform the telecommunications industry, there were approximately 13,000 alarm companies in this country employing over 120,000 workers. By 1997, that number had dropped dramatically to 10,750 companies and 90,000 workers--according to an industry source, Freeman & Associates. At the same time, there was significant consolidation among the top 100 alarm companies. Most industry experts agree that several top 100 companies have concluded that they would have to consolidate to compete with the rapidly expanding Ameritech. This hastened the demise of many small alarm companies, driven out of business by having to compete with the new giants in the industry, especially Ameritech. At the same time that small companies were being driven out of business, there have been dramatic layoffs in the companies Ameritech acquired. Just last year, Ameritech's SecurityLink alarm division announced layoffs of over 1,500 workers out of a workforce of 8,000. One example of this can be found in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. About 20 years ago, my friend Patrick Egan started his own small alarm company, Commonwealth Security Systems, Inc. He built his company into a significant regional player with 11 offices and a central monitoring station in Lancaster. He employed over 200 people in Lancaster alone. In January of 1997, believing that he had won the battle against Ameritech purchasing alarm monitoring companies, Patrick sold his business to Republic Industries. He sold with the understanding that all of his employees would be retained, monitoring would continue in Lancaster, and he would remain on as President of Republic Industries' Mid-Atlantic operations. During the short period Republic owned Commonwealth Security Systems, they significantly expanded operations and doubled the size of its workforce from 200 to 400. However, thirty four weeks later, Ameritech's SecurityLink came in and purchased all the customer accounts and assets of Republic's alarm division. That day, Ameritech chose to let Patrick go. Then, it proceeded to layoff nearly 100 of the Lancaster-based employees. More layoffs are expected as SecurityLink eliminates its Lancaster monitoring station as well as 22 others across North America. Not only are jobs lost, but also the industry is convinced that safety is compromised. Last December 30, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stepped in and vacated the FCC's ruling that precipitated the buying binge in the first place. In its ruling, the Court said, ``When the purported (by the Commission) `plain meaning' of a statute's word or phrase happens to render the statue senseless, we encountering ambiguity rather than clarity. . . So [it is] here.'' The Court continued: ``The Commission's interpretation means that although Section 275 (a) (2) precluded Ameritech from acquiring even one share of Circuit City's stock, Ameritech was free to acquire the company's entire alarm monitoring services division--lock, stock, and barrel. We asked the Commission counsel at oral argument what possible rationale Congress could have had in mind if this is what it intended.'' The FCC's counsel has not provided a cogent answer to the court's question. I share the court's confusion. I know what we meant when we adopted Section 275 and Ameritech certainly knew what we meant. But that did not stop Ameritech's management. It has been their intention all along to push as far and as hard as they could while they had their unique advantage over the other Bells. They would hope that either the FCC or the courts would sustain their position. They have deep financial pockets which they have relied upon in the hope that they could drive the alarm industry into submission. But that's not going to happen. The Court has signaled that an interpretation of Section 275 which circumvents the prohibition on purchases by specifying the method of purchase does not adhere with what Congress intended. The Court has directed the FCC to issue an interpretation of Section 275 which makes sense. It is my hope that the Commission in its next ruling will send a clear and unambiguous message to Ameritech that it must cease and desist from flaunting the law and should be ordered to divest itself of any customer accounts or assets it acquired after the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress clearly intended to prohibit Ameritech from acquiring all or any part of an alarm monitoring company in any form. It's time for Ameritech to realize that. The only way they will, though, is if the FCC forces them to follow the law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank both Senators from North Dakota for their strong voices and strong support for the crop insurance program. To sum it up, our farmers, our refugees, our asylees, should not be penalized because of the delay on the part of the House last year--not going to conference--and they should not be penalized because of this odd parliamentary situation we have. I hope the majority leader and his staff who are listening to this will hopefully bring up this bill today, and let's get it passed. I don't think it will take more than 10 or 15 minutes to get the job done and we can say to our farmers that their crop insurance policies are, indeed, going to be renewed for next year. I thank both of the managers of the bill for yielding us this time to talk about this very important subject.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes about a conference report that is now before the Senate which is of the utmost urgency that we proceed to and pass yet today. I am hopeful we can do it. That is S. 1150. It is the agricultural research bill which we passed here last year by unanimous consent. What happened is, the House passed it also last year but the House, for one reason or another, refused to go to conference, and then the session ended last year. About 3 weeks ago, the House finally consented to go to conference. We went to conference. We worked out our agreements on a very important bill. And that bill now is before the Senate. In the ag research bill, there are at least three very important parts: The ag research; crop insurance, to work out the problems in crop insurance so we can have a disaster crop insurance program for the next 5 years; and there is also a food stamp provision for refugees and the asylees that were inadvertently left out of the welfare-to-work reform bill that we passed in August of 1996. We need to pass this bill today. It is of the utmost urgency. We have over 717,000 catastrophic crop insurance policies in America today, farmers all over this country, from California to Maryland, from North Dakota to Texas. All rely upon this crop insurance program. If we don't pass this bill very soon, those policies will start to lapse and those farmers who have to plant in the summertime for winter crops will not be able to get their crop insurance. That means if they were to have a natural disaster that would wipe them out completely, they would be in here to Congress again begging us to bail them out. That is why it is so important we pass this today. Now, why today? Because we have a very strange parliamentary situation. If we don't pass it today and this budget passes tomorrow, which it will, then we lose all the money that we have for crop insurance to help out our farmers. I might also add, we lose the money that is in there to meet a need for refugees and asylees who are legal immigrants in this country. Some of them, like the Hmong who fought alongside our American troops in Laos during the Vietnam war, were inadvertently cut out of the welfare reform bill. This is in the bill before us, S. 1150. As I said, S. 1150 had bipartisan support in conference, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate. We worked out all the differences. There are no objections in our committees to this. That is why it is so vitally important that we pass it today. I guess I ask here on the floor, the majority leader, and to the staff who are here, if they could possibly bring up S. 1150 today, sometime by the end of the day. I don't know if the managers of the bill would mind if we set it aside for 15 minutes--I don't think it would take longer than that; after all, it passed by unanimous consent last year--and pass it today. I don't think it would take much time. As I said, I am sure Senator Lugar, being the chairman, and I, the ranking minority member, don't need more than 15 minutes on this bill. It is vitally important, because if we don't pass it, we will lose the crop insurance for our farmers, especially those who need to plant summer crops. I yield to Senator Conrad from North Dakota.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate it.

Mr. HARKIN. No.

Mr. HARKIN. It has something to do with the budget.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues Senators John Chafee, Bob Graham in introducing the first bipartisan comprehensive proposal to cut youth smoking--The Kids Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act, or simply, The KIDS Act. Today marks the turning point in the drive for tobacco reform this year. Before I go further, I want to thank my partners in this effort, John Chafee and Bob Graham. They are real heroes in the fight to save kids from tobacco. They've taken significant risks in joining this effort. And they have done a terrific job in putting our proposal together. This has truly been a bipartisan team effort. I also want thank the leaders of the public health community who have joined us to support our efforts. They will play a critical role in shaping the course of this historic tobacco reform effort in the coming months. And their support is vital to the success of The KIDS Act. Finally, I want to thank Dr. C. Everett Koop and Dr. David Kessler, for their help and counsel to us in crafting our proposal. We are introducing this bill because we face a public health crisis affecting our children. 3,000 kids start smoking every day and fully 1,000 of them will die prematurely because of it. That's the equivalent of 3 jumbo jets packed with kids crashing every day. 400,000 Americans die every year of tobacco related illness at a cost of over $50 billion. And the tobacco industry has been engaged in a systematic campaign of distortion and deceit to hook kids and hide the facts from the American people. Tobacco reform is the issue of 1998. It is the crown jewel of this Congress. And passing a tobacco bill like the KIDS Act is a once and a lifetime opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the tobacco debate so far has been largely partisan. That's why we've joined arms across party lines behind the KIDS Act. We hope and believe that the introduction of our bipartisan bill will change the debate and significantly increase the odds that reforms will be made. The KIDS Act would cut tobacco use by kids in half over the next three years through aggressive and comprehensive reforms. That's the sharpest and fastest reduction achieved by any bill proposed to date. Our goal is to cut it by at least 65 percent shortly after that. The Food and Drug Administration has found that reducing the use of tobacco by children by 50 percent could prevent well over 60,000 premature deaths every year, and will save up to $43 billion annually in reduced medical costs and improved productivity. Now is not the time for anything but the strongest, most effective bill possible. Experts agree that a substantial price hike over a very short period of time is key to changing teen smoking behavior. If left unchanged, the Commerce Committee draft bill, which spreads a $1.10 price increase over 5 years will do little to impact teen smoking. In contrast, the KIDS Act increases the price by $1.50 in just two years, achieving a 50% reduction in just three years. That's the bottom line and anything less is just smoke and mirrors. In addition, our bill gets tough on the individual companies that addict the most kids by imposing tough penalties if the company doesn't meet teen smoking reduction targets. I'm very concerned that the Commerce Committee proposes no company-specific penalty. Without a profit-based deterrent, the penalty will just be passed through to consumers, giving companies no incentive to cut youth smoking. Finally, our bill caps the annual liability of the tobacco industry as part of a tough, comprehensive bill that dramatically reduces youth smoking. Without a tough public health bill, the annual liability cap is not acceptable. As Drs. Koop and Kessler say in their letter, our bill is ``tough medicine for a tough problem.'' Our proposal sends a simple message to the tobacco industry: Keep away from our kids. Our plan will be a very, very bitter pill for the industry. And no doubt they will criticize us. But in the end, I believe they are going to have to swallow it. Creating a more sensible policy toward tobacco has been a goal of mine for many years. It was in 1977, over 21 years ago, that I first introduced legislation calling for repeal of the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising and marketing. Unfortunately, victories in the tobacco wars have come few and far between. In 1988, we finally changed federal law on smoking in airplanes. It was a full ten years later, and after failing one time, the Senate took its next step last September by passing the Harkin- Chafee plan to fully fund enforcement of the FDA youth ID check. But I am more hopeful now than ever that we can pass a comprehensive plan that would once and for all change how this nation deals with tobacco and dramatically cut the number of our kids addicted to this deadly product. Mr. President, our goal is to be on the Senate floor three years from now announcing that indeed, child smoking has been cut in half. We're going to put all our energies into making that happen. We urge our colleagues to review our proposal and join us in sponsoring it. We look forward to working with all our colleagues on a bicameral, bipartisan basis to make good on the historic opportunity we have this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the KIDS Act, letters of endorsement of our bill and copies of several editorials in support our the KIDS Act be included in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues Senators John Chafee, Bob Graham in introducing the first bipartisan comprehensive proposal to cut youth smoking--The Kids Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act, or simply, The KIDS Act. Today marks the turning point in the drive for tobacco reform this year. Before I go further, I want to thank my partners in this effort, John Chafee and Bob Graham. They are real heroes in the fight to save kids from tobacco. They've taken significant risks in joining this effort. And they have done a terrific job in putting our proposal together. This has truly been a bipartisan team effort. I also want thank the leaders of the public health community who have joined us to support our efforts. They will play a critical role in shaping the course of this historic tobacco reform effort in the coming months. And their support is vital to the success of The KIDS Act. Finally, I want to thank Dr. C. Everett Koop and Dr. David Kessler, for their help and counsel to us in crafting our proposal. We are introducing this bill because we face a public health crisis affecting our children. 3,000 kids start smoking every day and fully 1,000 of them will die prematurely because of it. That's the equivalent of 3 jumbo jets packed with kids crashing every day. 400,000 Americans die every year of tobacco related illness at a cost of over $50 billion. And the tobacco industry has been engaged in a systematic campaign of distortion and deceit to hook kids and hide the facts from the American people. Tobacco reform is the issue of 1998. It is the crown jewel of this Congress. And passing a tobacco bill like the KIDS Act is a once and a lifetime opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the tobacco debate so far has been largely partisan. That's why we've joined arms across party lines behind the KIDS Act. We hope and believe that the introduction of our bipartisan bill will change the debate and significantly increase the odds that reforms will be made. The KIDS Act would cut tobacco use by kids in half over the next three years through aggressive and comprehensive reforms. That's the sharpest and fastest reduction achieved by any bill proposed to date. Our goal is to cut it by at least 65 percent shortly after that. The Food and Drug Administration has found that reducing the use of tobacco by children by 50 percent could prevent well over 60,000 premature deaths every year, and will save up to $43 billion annually in reduced medical costs and improved productivity. Now is not the time for anything but the strongest, most effective bill possible. Experts agree that a substantial price hike over a very short period of time is key to changing teen smoking behavior. If left unchanged, the Commerce Committee draft bill, which spreads a $1.10 price increase over 5 years will do little to impact teen smoking. In contrast, the KIDS Act increases the price by $1.50 in just two years, achieving a 50% reduction in just three years. That's the bottom line and anything less is just smoke and mirrors. In addition, our bill gets tough on the individual companies that addict the most kids by imposing tough penalties if the company doesn't meet teen smoking reduction targets. I'm very concerned that the Commerce Committee proposes no company-specific penalty. Without a profit-based deterrent, the penalty will just be passed through to consumers, giving companies no incentive to cut youth smoking. Finally, our bill caps the annual liability of the tobacco industry as part of a tough, comprehensive bill that dramatically reduces youth smoking. Without a tough public health bill, the annual liability cap is not acceptable. As Drs. Koop and Kessler say in their letter, our bill is ``tough medicine for a tough problem.'' Our proposal sends a simple message to the tobacco industry: Keep away from our kids. Our plan will be a very, very bitter pill for the industry. And no doubt they will criticize us. But in the end, I believe they are going to have to swallow it. Creating a more sensible policy toward tobacco has been a goal of mine for many years. It was in 1977, over 21 years ago, that I first introduced legislation calling for repeal of the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising and marketing. Unfortunately, victories in the tobacco wars have come few and far between. In 1988, we finally changed federal law on smoking in airplanes. It was a full ten years later, and after failing one time, the Senate took its next step last September by passing the Harkin- Chafee plan to fully fund enforcement of the FDA youth ID check. But I am more hopeful now than ever that we can pass a comprehensive plan that would once and for all change how this nation deals with tobacco and dramatically cut the number of our kids addicted to this deadly product. Mr. President, our goal is to be on the Senate floor three years from now announcing that indeed, child smoking has been cut in half. We're going to put all our energies into making that happen. We urge our colleagues to review our proposal and join us in sponsoring it. We look forward to working with all our colleagues on a bicameral, bipartisan basis to make good on the historic opportunity we have this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the KIDS Act, letters of endorsement of our bill and copies of several editorials in support our the KIDS Act be included in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1998. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Jeffords for all their work on this important piece of legislation. I'd also like to commend the work of their staff, Connie Garner and Chris Crowley. Many individuals receiving SSI and SSDI want to work and are able to work. But less than \1/2\ of 1% of these individuals leave the Social Security rolls and become self-sufficient. Clearly, there is something wrong with the system. When we enacted the ADA, we put our nation on a new path. A path toward independence, not dependence. Toward inclusion, not exclusion. Toward empowerment, not paternalism. The ADA opened the door to employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Today, we take another major step along that path. The Work Incentives Improvement Act removes artificial impediments faced by people with disabilities when they are ready to work. The bill offers persons with disabilities affordable and accessible health care, so that they no longer have to face the choice between working and paying taxes, on the one hand, or having access to health care benefits on the other. In the wake of the ADA, we must now bring our other federal policies into the 1990s. This Act begins to do that. Access to health care is critical if people with disabilities are to live independently and remain self-sufficient. If we can provide a reasonable support structure for people with disabilities who can work and who want to work, then we should. It's the right thing to do. Things usually don't get done because they are right. They get done because people stand up and take action. Now is the time to take action on this issue. If our efforts here are successful, Americans with disabilities will no longer face disincentives for working, for wanting a piece of the American dream, for remaining vital members of our society, and for reminding all of us that disabled does not mean unable. I hope my colleagues in the Senate quickly take action on this bill, and that this bill soon becomes law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation for the men and women of our armed forces who served in the Persian Gulf during operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The U.S. Government has $1.3 billion in impounded Iraqi funds from the Gulf War. U.S. businesses, the U.S. government, private citizens and over 3,000 American veterans have currently filed over $5 billion in claims against these funds. No criteria exists for dispersing these funds and no system of priorities is in place to ensure a fair settlement. I believe the U.S. should protect those who safe guarded the interests of America during the Gulf War by ensuring their ability to file for claims against the impounded Iraqi money. My legislation, ``The Gulf War Veterans' Iraqi Claims Protection Act of 1998,'' will put to rest, once and for all, lingering concerns about who should have priority in receiving these funds. This legislation will: Grant priority status to all retired, reserve or active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces who may wish to file claims arising out of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; Establish a fund in the U.S. Treasury for payment of these claims; and Create a formula for payments based on priority status. Mr. President, no one disputes that many U.S. businesses and many American non-veteran citizens have legitimate claims to this money. However, I firmly believe that our Gulf War veterans, who risked their lives for their country and our freedom, deserve the highest priority in having their claims resolved. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting our Gulf War veterans by supporting this legislation. I have a copy of a letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in support of this legislation which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record along with the text of the legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation for the men and women of our armed forces who served in the Persian Gulf during operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The U.S. Government has $1.3 billion in impounded Iraqi funds from the Gulf War. U.S. businesses, the U.S. government, private citizens and over 3,000 American veterans have currently filed over $5 billion in claims against these funds. No criteria exists for dispersing these funds and no system of priorities is in place to ensure a fair settlement. I believe the U.S. should protect those who safe guarded the interests of America during the Gulf War by ensuring their ability to file for claims against the impounded Iraqi money. My legislation, ``The Gulf War Veterans' Iraqi Claims Protection Act of 1998,'' will put to rest, once and for all, lingering concerns about who should have priority in receiving these funds. This legislation will: Grant priority status to all retired, reserve or active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces who may wish to file claims arising out of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; Establish a fund in the U.S. Treasury for payment of these claims; and Create a formula for payments based on priority status. Mr. President, no one disputes that many U.S. businesses and many American non-veteran citizens have legitimate claims to this money. However, I firmly believe that our Gulf War veterans, who risked their lives for their country and our freedom, deserve the highest priority in having their claims resolved. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting our Gulf War veterans by supporting this legislation. I have a copy of a letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in support of this legislation which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record along with the text of the legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Basically, we see this figure bandied about that it is going to cost $1.5 billion. That is common costs. There are other national costs to which we have committed to subsidize. Already, just in the past 2 years, the figures that we have been able to unearth and dig into show that the United States has already spent about $1 billion in subsidies to these countries for their NATO expansion purposes. That is not calculated in the $1.5 billion. It should be, because it is still a cost to the U.S. taxpayers. This amendment, plus some others that I will have, will try to fashion this resolution so that we will have a really good handle as we go year by year as to just what the costs are to the U.S. taxpayers. We know already that $1.5 billion is not the total cost to U.S. taxpayers. It is more than that. How much more? We don't know. That is why I was one who wanted to postpone the debate and vote on NATO expansion after June. I thought we could take it up in July, have a serious debate, pass it in midsummer, or not pass it, as the will of the body would be. At least at that time we would have a study being done by NATO at the present time that is due in June. We don't have that study right now. This study is basically on the requirements for upgrading the militaries of these three countries. That way we would have a better idea of the shortfalls in these countries, in their militaries, and the costs to the United States--not just the common costs, but the other kinds of costs that we will be enlisted to come up with in terms of the national costs which we will be subsidizing for these three countries. I am hopeful as this debate ensues that I will be able to engage with members of the Foreign Relations Committee to explain thoroughly for the record exactly what these national costs are, what our commitments are, what the subsidies are, and if we have any data at all, to give us a better idea of what these subsidies and the national costs will be. If we just projected ahead based upon what we found in the last couple of years, in the next 10 years we would be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of at least an additional $10 billion for our taxpayers, at a minimum, and that is before any of the upgrades have taken place in any of these countries. So that is just based upon what we spent in the last couple of years. Mr. President, again I hope we have a good debate on this. I am hopeful we can get some better cost figures. As I said, I will offer this amendment at the appropriate time. I printed it in the Record today, to get a better handle on the costs. I also will be placing in the Record letters from former Senators, questions raised by academics around the country as to just what the purposes of NATO expansion are, what the goals will be, how will this affect our relations with Russia, how will it affect our relations with other countries that are not members of NATO now but perhaps want to be in the near future. I understand there will be an amendment offered that will close the door for certain other countries to join NATO for some specified amount of time. What will this do to our relations with these countries and the relations of those countries with those nations that will be joining NATO if this resolution passes? I think these are all very serious questions. I hope the debate will flesh these out and that we can have some solid answers, especially as to the costs. Perhaps as to relations between nations in the future, this may be more in the realm of speculation. But I believe that at least these ought to be talked about and debated, and they ought to be debated in light of what the costs to our taxpayers would be. I am more interested in that than any of the other aspects of the bill that is now before us. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak just for a few minutes about the issue of the NATO expansion that has come to the floor today. As I understand the parliamentary situation, the NATO expansion resolution has been laid down, we are now in morning business, and we will not be back on the NATO expansion resolution until sometime later--not tomorrow--maybe later this week or maybe next week or beyond. I am hopeful at the outset that even though the bill has been laid down, the Senate will be given time for due discussion and debate on the proposed NATO expansion. Quite frankly, I was one of those who signed a letter with my colleague Senator Smith from New Hampshire and, if I am not mistaken, 17 other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, asking that the debate on the proposed NATO expansion be suspended or postponed for a while. I will get into the reasons for that in just a moment. I am sorry it is now before the Senate. I think it should have been postponed for very good and sufficient reasons. This is an issue with profound implications for our Nation and the international community. It is also an issue that, I am disappointed to say, has not received the kind of vigorous national debate that it deserves. I was asked the other day when I was in my home State of Iowa about the NATO expansion bill and what kind of interest was in it. I said basically it is a big yawn. No one is talking about it, very few people are writing about it, and yet this may be the most serious vote that we take this year in the U.S. Senate. Quite frankly, even though I respect the Foreign Relations Committee, they have had a lot of hearings on it I know, they have had witnesses in, but still it has not received the kind of national debate and national focus that it really deserves. I think we are kind of rushing this issue right now in light of the fact that there is supposed to be a NATO study that is due this June. Again, I will talk about that in a moment. Taking such a huge step in foreign policy with such low levels of awareness among the public and even in Congress is not a good idea. The debate or, more accurately, I should say the lack of debate on this important policy question has concerned and surprised me. Moving forward before legitimate concerns and competing viewpoints receive a complete airing does not seem prudent. The usually deliberative Senate seems to be in a rush to pass judgment on this issue. I ask, what's the rush? Concerns about the extension of America's military obligations have been voiced by Members, interest groups and academics across the political spectrum. One must observe more than just casually that when the voices expressing caution include progressives, conservatives, libertarians and others, Republicans and Democrats, such diverse opposition may be a sign to act more slowly and deliberatively on this issue. Let me be clear, I have not yet decided how I will vote on NATO expansion. If I had to vote tomorrow, I would vote no, because I believe, more often than not, that is the safest way to proceed when one does not have all the information that one needs and when there are, I think, sufficient questions about the expansion and what it is going to cost and what its implications for our foreign policy will be. However, later on, after more information is gleaned in a vigorous public debate, I might be inclined to vote for it. But at the present time, I cannot support it without more information and without some more enlightenment as to the actual cost figures. Without a comprehensive consideration of the issues surrounding NATO expansion, I am concerned that we will continually have to revisit potentially divisive issues, such as cost and burdensharing among member nations, the issues of command and coordination of forces, issues of responses to real and perceived threats, or even the more basic question of the mission and scope of the organization itself. These are not simple questions that lend themselves to a sound-bite debate. These are questions which will shape, for better or for worse, our defense and foreign policy options for decades to come. To be sure, NATO has been a success. It has helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly 50 years both by deterring aggression from the Warsaw Pact nations and encouraging cooperation between NATO members. I must say that due to the commitment of its members and the leadership of the United States, NATO has largely fulfilled the reason for its very birth--the Soviet Union. NATO has fulfilled its original intent, it has outlived the Soviet Union, and now we have to ask, what is its future? What role would an expanded NATO play in a post-cold-war era? What role would it play in a new century, in a new millennium? And the question I will be raising tonight and many times during this debate is, at what cost, both in financial terms and in less tangible areas such as the potential for strained relations with nonmember nations or even a dangerous rollback of the nuclear nonproliferation progress made since the end of the cold war? One of my primary concerns, as I said, is the wide variance in and suspect reliability of projected financial costs. I have seen projections range from $125 billion down to $1.5 billion. When you have that kind of wide variance, something is very strange. Another piece of the puzzle we are missing is how new members are to address their military shortfalls. Although the shortfalls were to be identified in December 1997, the countries' force goals will not be set until this spring. In other words, we are without a plan to address the force goals and the price tag associated with it. I am very uncomfortable signing the American taxpayer's name to a potentially ballooning blank check. What share the taxpayers ultimately will pay for NATO expansion is not at all clear, not just because there is no consensus on what the overall costs will be, but also because burdensharing arrangements between current and prospective members have not been firmly established. I will offer an amendment at the beginning to deal with some of the cost concerns I have been raising. As we know, the $1.5 billion cost figure that we have seen for the United States for NATO expansion is quoted widely and broadly. That figure includes only what is known as common costs. The figure excludes a number of other expansion costs for the three nations that are due to join NATO if this resolution passes relating to the upgrading of their militaries. The United States is expected to contribute substantially to the ``national'' costs through bilateral subsidies my amendment would require, including the bilateral contributions, when calculating the U.S. share of enlargement costs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed in the Record.

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 am pleased today to join many of my colleagues in support of the ``Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.'' This legislation, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Bill Frist, and cosponsored by nearly all the members of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, is an important step forward in the study and prevention of diseases and conditions unique to women. In the late 1980's, I learned that there was an embarrassing lack of research on diseases and conditions prevalent in women. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that women were routinely excluded from medical research studies at NIH. Because of this information, in 1990, I fought for legislation creating the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since its creation, the Office successfully worked to ensure that research focuses on women's health and that women be included in clinical trials. Senator Frist's legislation builds upon the base of research and prevention knowledge we have developed over the past few years. The bill reauthorizes essential programs relating to women's health research at NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am particularly proud of the reauthorization of the programs promoting research and education on the drug ``diethylstilbestrol,'' otherwise known as DES. This drug was prescribed to pregnant American women from 1938 to 1971 in the mistaken belief that it would prevent miscarriage. But DES is now known to cause a five-fold increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, as well as a three-fold increased risk of miscarriage. I was proud to introduce legislation in 1992 that established a pilot program through NIH to test ways to educate the public and health professionals about how to deal with DES exposure. Last year I introduced legislation that would give people across the nation access to information developed through this pilot program. I am pleased that this bill has been incorporated in the ``Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.'' In addition, I am pleased that the bill extends research programs for basic and clinical research and education efforts with respect to cancer, particularly breast cancer and ovarian cancer. I have fought for a long time for increased funding for breast cancer research. During my tenure as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that handles NIH we provided dramatic increases in funding for breast cancer research. This legislation also extends important research at NIH on osteoporosis, Paget's disease and related bone disorders, and research on cardiovascular diseases in women. It reauthorizes programs at the National Institute on Aging, including research into the aging processes of women, with particular emphasis on the effects of menopause and the complications related to aging and the loss of ovarian hormones in women. CDC also plays an important role in the prevention diseases and conditions in women. This legislation would extend CDC's collection of statistical and epidemiological information, which is often the only national data available on the health status of American women and their use of the health care system. The bill extends CDC's National Cancer Registries Program, which provides funds to states to enhance their cancer surveillance data needed to monitor trends and serve as the foundation of a national comprehensive cancer control strategy. I am particularly proud that this legislation extends the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. In 1990 I worked to start and fund this program which provides mammography and cervical cancer screening to low income women without insurance. This program has provided vital access to services for thousands of women across the country. In addition, the bill would extend authorization for grants to academic health institutions for research on health promotion and disease prevention. A number of these institutions are working together to develop strategies for prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. Finally, the bill reauthorizes grants administered by CDC to non-profit private organizations to establish projects in local communities to coordinate intervention and prevention of domestic violence. Mr. President, the research into and prevention of diseases prevalent in women is an investment in our daughters, wives, mothers, and sisters. It is an investment in our future.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If the leader will yield for a question. On the highway bill, I am concerned the Banking Committee has to offer its amendment on transit. I am concerned about the cloture vote on Monday night. Does that cover the Banking Committee's provisions on transit, because some of us who are concerned about rural transit may have an amendment on rural transit depending on what the Banking Committee's amendment looks like?

Mr. HARKIN. If the leader will yield further, but if they offer it on Monday and the cloture vote is at, what time, 5?

Mr. HARKIN. That would cover the Banking Committee provision.