Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. I haven't had any amendments to the underlying bill. Some of us from rural States may have an amendment depending on what the Banking Committee comes out with. We won't have a chance to look at it until Monday. I am concerned about having the cloture vote without time to look at it and consider it with Members on both sides of the aisle. That was my only concern on that.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. amendment no. 1708

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. I would be happy to participate in the colloquy as well.

Mr. HARKIN. I concur with the foregoing description of our understanding as well. As Senator Lugar described, we will propose to drop the existing Senate provisions on aquaculture and weather activities, and to substitute in their place straight reauthorizations of the two acts that Senator McCain mentioned.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in this body to pay tribute to the gifted science fiction and fantasy writer Jo Clayton, who died Friday, February 13, in Portland, Oregon, two days short of her 59th birthday. Clayton was hospitalized in July 1996 with the multiple myeloma that eventually killed her. Her fight against the cancer of the bone marrow (plasma cells), mobilized the science fiction community and led to a national fund raising campaign to help her deal with the financial burden of her illness. Jo Clayton was the author of 35 published novels and many short stories. She wrote in both the fantasy and the SF genres. In her best known work, ``The Diadem'' series (1977), she anticipated by many years the current technology which may allow development of computerized components that can be integrated with a human mind. Jo Clayton's writing was marked by complex, beautifully realized societies set in exotic worlds, lyrical prose, and compelling characters, both male and female. Not counting sales of her last series, DRUMS OF CHAOS, Clayton's works sold over 1,250,000 copies. While in the hospital, Clayton impressed everyone with her courage by finishing DRUM CALLS, writing a number of short stories, and completing approximately half of the third volume in the DRUMS trilogy, titled DRUMS OF CHAOS. San Francisco writer Katharine Kerr, who worked with Clayton on a number of writing and editing projects, is Clayton's literary executor as well as good friend. Kerr is expected to either finish the third book herself or select a writer who will complete it. Jo Clayton's impact on the science fiction community goes far beyond the numbers of books sold which bear her name. Many people who didn't know her personally were touched by her humor, compassion and zest for living, even some who knew her only through the medium of electronic communications. It was an unexplained interruption in those communications which alerted friends to her health problems and led to her hospitalization. Those friends and others from afar supported her battle with the illness which took her life 21 months later. Even those with only fleeting contact were stirred by the courage and determination she displayed during that struggle. Her legacy will live on not only in her books but in the memories of her friends and fans. Toward the end of her life, her friends gathered in person and on-line to honor her achievements and remember her enjoyment of things large and small. One friend, a fellow Portlander, John C. Bunnell, composed a poem for that evening, which I would like to share with you. Au Revoir Joy shared with friends is what we'll think of first, Or stories in a book too good to close. Comes now a twilight, bringing with it tears; Let no one shed them for her spirit, though, As after evening, morning reappears, Yet where the new day beckons, none here know. Tomorrows without number yet remain On printed page, or on some other plane; No need to weep: her words will be her rose. Mr. President, I submit that we all should be fortunate enough to have friends willing to bear witness in ways such as this.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I want to recognize those Americans who were exposed to radiation fallout from government testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950's, the effects of which are still being studied. I was recently contacted by Karen Anderson and her two children, Leah and Seth, who are constituents of mine from Urbandale, Iowa. Included in their correspondence was a moving and touching tribute to Bob Anderson, their husband and father, who, after a lengthy and courageous battle, succumbed to cancer on September 7, 1996. As someone who grew up in Iowa and lost two sisters and a brother to cancer, I understand and empathize with their situation. The letters, photos and other personal materials that made up a bound volume memorializing the life and struggle of Mr Anderson displayed the obvious affection and love he felt for everyone and that he received in return. In fact, dozens of friends and relatives signed the notebook in tribute to Bob Anderson. It is always a tragedy when someone is taken from us when they have so much left to offer. There is no doubt he will be greatly missed by all. The anguish of the Anderson family was compounded by the circumstances surrounding the cause of Mr Anderson's cancer. Atomic bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950's exposed millions of Americans-- particulary children--to large amounts of radioactive Iodine-131, which accumulates in the thyroid gland and has been linked to thyroid cancer. ``Hot Spots''--where the Iodine-131 fallout was the greatest--were identified as receiving 5-16 rads of Iodine-131 To put that in perspective, Federal standards for nuclear power plants require that protective action be taken for 15 rads. To further understand the enormity of the potential exposure, consider this--116 million curies of Iodine-131 were released by the above ground nuclear weapons testing in the United States compared with 7.3 million from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in the former Soviet Union. Exposing our citizens to these risks is unacceptable. The ``Hot Spots'' included many areas far away from Nevada, including New York, Massachusetts and Iowa. Due to the character of Iodine-131, those exposed to the highest concentrations were those who drank large amounts of milk from cows that grazed in fields with radiation fallout. Because their thyroids are smaller and still growing, children were most vulnerable. Mr. Anderson grew up in Iowa in Woodbury County , an area noted as a hot spot by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). He also suffered from Thyroid cancer. It is understandable that his family now wonders whether his cancer could have been detected and treated more effectively if the NCI information was known earlier. This hits very close to home for me. During the 1950's, like Bob Anderson, I was living in a rural Iowa county which has now been identified as a ``Hot Spot'' by the long delayed National Cancer Institute study. Along with many Iowans, I drank milk from cows kept on the farm. This increased the risk faced by myself and my family because of the accumulation of radioactive iodine in milk. When it comes to the government and nuclear testing, history shows the problem hasn't just been a fallout of radiation, but withholding of facts which may be detrimental to the public health. Information has come to light that government officials were aware that fallout from nuclear testing would contaminate areas that were hundreds, even thousands, of miles away. Additionally, it is outrageous that the government provided maps and forecasts of potential radioactive contamination to the Kodak film corporation during the 1950's and not to the American public. As I've said before, if we could protect a roll of film, we should have protected the parents and children. On October 1, 1997, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee held hearings where I raised questions about Iodine-131 fallout and its impact on our nation's citizens. I am working with NCI and other federal health agencies to ensure that useful and timely guidelines on the health impacts of radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing gets to physicians and concerned scientists. Although NCI has started this process, a lot more needs to be done. There is strong evidence that exposure to other radioactive isotopes, such as strontium 90, cesium 137, and barium 140, which were also spread by nuclear testing, could lead to bone cancer, leukemia, higher infant mortality, and a host of other illnesses. This needs to be examined. So do the nuclear weapons tests that took place in other parts of the United States and around the world. I am hopeful that my colleagues will support legislation I have introduced, S.1524, which continues the study of the health impacts of nuclear fallout. I feel this is important legislation that needs to become law this year. I am grateful to the Anderson family for sharing their highly personal and powerful story of the struggle with Bob's illness and the lack of forthcoming information on the potential exposure to radiation fallout in the 1950's. A story like the Anderson's underscores the need for accurate and timely dissemination of information to protect the public health. Mr. President, I ask to include a letter from the Anderson family in the Record. The letter follows: Urbandale, IA, January 20, 1997. Hon. Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator, Federal Building, Des Moines, IA. Dear Senator Harkin: My name is Bob Anderson. My family has been reading with great interest the newspaper articles that have appeared in the Des Moines Register regarding the radioactive fallout that resulted from the more than 90 atomic bombs detonated above and below ground between 1951 and 1970. I was born in Woodbury County on October 3, 1952 and lived there until I left to attend college in 1970. As you are aware, Woodbury County received moderate levels of radioactive fallout (6.1 rads) from the above-ground atomic bomb tests between 1951 and 1962, and was one of four counties to be repeated in the list of Iowa counties receiving radiation from underground nuclear tests (1960- 1970). In October 1992, at the age of 40, I noticed a large lump in my neck and showed the lump to my family physician during my annual physical exam. He told me that the lump was just a fat deposit and to go home and not worry about it. About six months later, I mentioned the lump to my wife and she advised me to see a specialist as soon as possible. In March of 1993, I went to an ear, nose and throat specialist who spent several weeks performing a needle biopsy with no results. In April of 1993, I underwent a thyroidectomy. The surgeon removed only the side of my thyroid which contained the tumor. Two weeks later the final biopsy confirmed the 2\1/4\ centimeter tumor was malignant. I then saw an oncologist who advised me the other side of my thyroid should be removed immediately so I could start my radioactive iodine treatments to rid my body of any remaining cancerous thyroid tissue. I visited another surgeon the remove the remaining thyroid. He was very apologetic but said that he could not remove the rest of my thyroid until my incision was completely healed which would take six more months. From the time I first showed the lump to a physician until the time that I received my radioactive thyroid treatments for cancer, over one year had elapsed. My family wonders if the information from the National Cancer Institute had only been released earlier, if my physicians would have taken a more serious approach to the ``fat deposit'' in my neck. The also wonder if this information had been made available to the public earlier, if I would have been so trusting of my doctors' opinions. Many wrong choices and assumptions were made in regard to my thyroid cancer. Knowledge is power and without the knowledge of the exposure I had as a youth to the radioactive fallout, I was rendered powerless. In 1996 I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a very deadly cancer. I went to the University of Iowa Hospital and found out that I had had the multiple myeloma at the same time that I had the thyroid cancer. In order to survive, I would have to undergo a bone marrow transplant. Because I was adopted, I could not find a related bone marrow donor. An unrelated donor was located, and in July of 1996 I received my bone marrow transplant. On September 7, 1996, in spite of the love and prayers of family and friends, I died from rejection of the transplant. After my death, my wife, Karen, saw Dr. Andrea McGuire (nuclear medicine physician) interviewed on TV13. When Dr. McGuire told about her three in-laws from Woodbury County who had all developed thyroid cancer, my wife decided to call her to share my story. One of Dr. McGuire's relatives was born the same year that I had been born (1952) and also developed cancer at age 40 like me. My wife read to Dr. McGuire a portion from a National Cancer Institute publication entitled, ``What You Need to Know About Multiple Myeloma.'' In that publication, under the subheading, ``Possible Causes,'' it states, Some research suggests that certain risk factors increase a person's chance of getting multiple myeloma. * * * In addition, people exposed to large amounts of radiation (such as survivors of the atomic bomb explosions in Japan) have an increased risk for this disease. Scientists have some concern that small amounts of radiation (such as those radiologists and workers in nuclear plants are exposed to) also may increase the risk.'' Dr. McGuire not only agreed my multiple myeloma was caused by the radioactive fallout but even told my wife that the radionuclide strontium 89 would have been directly responsible since it collects in the bone marrow after it is ingested by the body. The main purpose of my letter is to let you know my family believes that I was a victim of radioactive fallout. I, like millions of others, was an innocent infant when the atomic bomb tests were being conducted. I can't think of anything more evil than a government that would intentionally contaminate their own population, especially babies and small children. I have enclosed some photos of myself and my family. I want you to see what I looked like as a small child when the atomic bombs were being detonated. I want you to see that I was a caring son, wonderful brother, loving husband, adored father and I treasured friend. Since I could not write this letter for myself, my family and friends decided to write it for me. I hope you don't mind that they have signed it for me also. Senator Harkin, please keep fighting for the truth. Only when the American people have the whole truth, will they have the power and control over their own lives. It is my hope that this letter will encourage the release of all information that the government has regarding radioactivity and it's connection with all forms of cancers. It is also my prayer that this information may help others. Senator Harkin, please don't forget me. Please don't let my death be in vain. In Loving Memory of Bob Anderson, Karen Anderson, Widow. Leah Anderson, Daugher. Seth Anderson, Sen.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud today to speak in support of the confirmation of Dr. David Satcher to be our Nation's Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. I want to speak about Dr. Satcher's qualifications for these important jobs, but first I want to quickly comment on the circumstances that have led to the delay of our consideration of his nomination. I think the course of events that have taken place is very unfortunate. I think whenever we let certain political views interfere with the public health, we are doing the American people a great disservice. It has been 3 years since we have had a Surgeon General. That has not been good for this country. It has created a vacuum of leadership on public health issues. I hope that once everyone has had a chance to voice his or her opinion on his nomination we can quickly move ahead and fill the longstanding vacancy. Mr. President, as chairman and as now ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, I have had the pleasure of working very closely with Dr. David Satcher since he has been the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Over the past 4 years, he has directed the CDCP with integrity, compassion, and a commonsense approach. Because of his leadership, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has successfully addressed some of the most pressing public health challenges facing our Nation by promoting health and preventing disease, injury, and premature death. Mr. President, let there be no mistake, the position of Surgeon General is an important one. Americans look to our Nation's top medical official for leadership and guidance on a number of critical health care issues. For example, one of our most honored Surgeons General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, used the office's bully pulpit to further public awareness of the dangers of smoking, and he was a courageous advocate for public health measures to address the growing AIDS crisis. Now those are big shoes to fill, but I can think of no one more qualified or capable than Dr. David Satcher. In 1992, I worked with former CDC Director William Roper to change the name of the CDC from the Centers for Disease Control to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We added the word ``prevention'' to the name. Now, Dr. Roper has moved on, but under Dr. Satcher's direction the CDCP has truly lived up to its new name. Since he took the helm, Dr. Satcher has spearheaded a child immunization initiative, upgraded the Nation's ability to detect and respond to emerging infectious diseases, and he has expanded the participation in the agency's breast and cervical cancer screening program. Dr. Satcher has taken the lead in creating an early warning system to detect and prevent food-borne illnesses and did the bulk of the work on the first-ever Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity and Health, which outlined ways in which all types of Americans can be more physically active. These initiatives have been very successful, and they have made the CDCP renowned worldwide for its leadership on prevention efforts. As many of you may know--and I will probably repeat a lot what has been said here, but I think it is worth repeating--Dr. Satcher has a distinguished background. President of Meharry Medical College from 1982 until he was named Director of the CDCP in 1993. At Meharry, he gained national recognition as an able administrator, and his leadership has been accorded wide recognition. In 1986, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences for his leadership skills. In 1996, Dr. Satcher received the prestigious Dr. Nathan B. Davis Award for outstanding public service to advance the public health. He has also received Ebony Magazine's American Black Achievement Award in Business and the Professions in 1994, and the Breslow Award for Excellence in Public Health in 1995. Most recently, Dr. Satcher has received the James D. Bruce Memorial Award for distinguished contributions in preventative medicine from the American College of Physicians. He has received the John Stearns Award for Lifetime Achievement in Medicine from the New York Academy of Medicine, and the Surgeon General's Medallion for significant and noteworthy contributions to the health of the Nation. These awards all testify to the fact that Dr. Satcher is a talented, compassionate doctor, researcher and administrator who, throughout his career, has committed himself to caring for those less fortunate and to focusing on preventative health care. Dr. Satcher's lifelong commitment to improving the health of the American people began not long after he survived a near fatal brush with whooping cough as a child. Because of this experience, he understands how important it is to have a Surgeon General who communicates clearly with the people about health-related issues and policies that can literally save their lives. He has strong and practical positions on ways to improve the public health, and as Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health, he will provide a positive and articulate voice on some of our Nation's most important health issues. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution stated in an editorial endorsing Dr. Satcher: He is the right man at the right time for these positions. I can think of no truer statement, Mr. President. So I look forward to concluding this debate, hopefully, on a positive note. I look forward to seeing Dr. Satcher confirmed as our Nation's Assistant Secretary of Health and Surgeon General. America needs a Surgeon General. We need that leadership, and Dr. Satcher is the best person for that job.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Oh.

Mr. HARKIN. Sorry? What was that request?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I, as in morning business, want to digress here just a moment, if I might, to talk a little bit about another issue that is going to be coming up here tomorrow. I understand we are going to be voting on cloture on a bill that has not gone through any committee, hasn't had any hearings. It involves an area of science and medicine which very few, if any, of us in this entire body are qualified to vote on with short notice, without proper hearings and proper input. Yet, it's trying to be rammed through here. I am talking about the bill regarding cloning research. Now, there has been a lot of, I think, undue, inflammatory kinds of statements and comments made about this cloning research. It seems odd to me that on something that has so much potential to alleviate human suffering and which is also, I will be frank to admit, fraught with perils of ethics and bioethics--it seems odd to me that a bill of that nature would be rushed so soon to the floor of the Senate. It seems to me that this is the kind of bill that ought to go through a lengthy and involved hearing process, to bring in the best minds, ethicists, physicians, doctors, researchers, those involved in gene therapy, those who have been involved in cloning research in the past, to hear their views on this. And then out of this, perhaps we can develop a more reasoned, logical, bipartisan approach on the issue of cloning research. So I have to ask, what is this so-called rush? Why bring it out on the floor like this without the proper kind of hearings, because there is a hidden political agenda? Is this to inflame fears among people? Well, I hope not. To take away that apprehension, I think the best thing would be to refer this to committee and have hearings on it. I serve on the Labor, Health and Human Services Committee, and I would assume that committee would be the proper one to have the hearings, at least some of them, plus those on the House side. So I want to speak about it in that context. Mr. President, each year, too many of our loved ones suffer terribly. They are taken away from us by diseases like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. For many years, I have worked hard to expand research into finding cures and preventative measures and improve treatments for the many conditions that rob us of our health. Over the last several years, there have been major breakthroughs in medical research. We need to make sure that our world-class scientists continue to build on this progress, but that we also say to young people who are in college today, maybe even in high school, who are thinking of pursuing research careers, that we welcome their inquisitiveness, we welcome their experimentation, we want there to be no bounds put on their inquiries by a rush to judgment by the Congress of the United States, which is ill-equipped to make such a judgment. I think our actions here send a very chilling message to young people, who want to go into biomedical research, that somehow there is going to be the heavy hand of ``Big Brother'' Government overlooking their research, telling them you can do this but not that, or you can go no further than that, or you can ask this question, but you can't ask that question. I think this bill that we have, again, pushed before us in this rush, can have that kind of chilling effect. Now, another area of research that has been ongoing for a long time-- this is nothing new--has recently captured public attention. That is the research into cloning, cloning cells. Now, there is a man in Chicago--I don't know him and I never have met him--and his name is Richard Seed. Well, he caused quite a sensation a few weeks ago by saying he intends to clone infertile people within the next 2 years. Well, when I first heard this, I said, who is this guy? I never heard of him and I have been involved in research, medical research for a long time. Well, I found out that, quite frankly, he is a very irresponsible individual. He doesn't have the expertise himself. He doesn't have the laboratory, the money, or the wherewithal. I think most researchers and policymakers that I know who know of this person say that he is both out of the mainstream and that his plans for cloning are, at the very least, premature. Now, again, from all that I have read--and now I have seen him on television--I think that Mr. Seed is more interested in getting his name in the paper than actually carrying out any legitimate scientific research. This is the unfortunate part of it. Why should the irresponsible actions of an individual like Mr. Seed lead to irresponsible actions on our part, because that is exactly what we are doing? Is Mr. Seed irresponsible? I believe so, absolutely. As I said, he doesn't have the expertise, the lab, or the wherewithal to even carry out this research. So he is making very irrational, irresponsible, inflammatory statements. But then why should we respond irresponsibly? I think we should respond responsibly and very carefully to an area of scientific research that can hold so much promise to alleviate pain and suffering and premature death all around the world. Let's not act irresponsibly because one person in America has spoken irresponsibly. S. 1601, the bill we will be having a cloture vote on tomorrow, bans the use of cloning technology called somatic cell nuclear transfer. To create an unfertilized egg cell, even if this egg cell is for research, is totally unrelated to the cloning of a human being. For example, if the cell is grown under special laboratory conditions, it does not become a child, or a baby, but instead becomes specific tissue such as a muscle, nerve, or skin. Just think of the potential of this kind of technology. I have looked into this a lot over the last several years. Science makes genetically identical tissues and organs for the treatment of a vast array of diseases. I gave a sort of off-the-cuff set of comments last summer when this issue came up with Dolly, the sheep that was cloned in Scotland. Dr. Wilmut was at our committee. I talked about the need to continue research into cloning of cells. I said it was going to happen in my lifetime. I certainly stand here and hope that it does. Shortly after that, I was at a restaurant in a small town in Iowa. A person came up to me, a friend of mine. I went over to their booth to see them. There was a woman there whom I had never met, a rather young woman with her husband. I was introduced to them. Just right out of the clear blue she said, ``Thank you for what you said about cloning and taking the position you did on cloning.'' I don't even think it was in the newspaper. It was on television, I think. CNN may have carried that type of thing. But I was curious as to why this young woman, who, if I am not mistaken, lives on a farm, I believe--I can't quite remember that detail. I asked her, ``Why are you so interested in this?'' She said because she has a rare kidney disorder. She is hoping because of rejection possibilities that there might come a time when we could actually grow the kind of tissue that would develop into a kidney to replace her kidney so that there wouldn't be that possibility of rejection. She got it. She understood it. That is what we are talking about. Those are the kinds of possibilities that I believe will happen in my lifetime if we do not act irresponsibly and irrationally. This bill, S. 1601, would make it a crime to conduct some research seeking to generate stem cells to treat a wide variety of and a wide range of deadly and disabling diseases. S. 1601 could ban blood cell therapies for diseases such as leukemia and sickle cell anemia, nerve cell therapies for Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and multiple sclerosis. It could ban nerve cell therapy for spinal cord injuries, a very promising area of research for cloning. It could ban pancreas cells to treat diabetes, skin cell transplants for severe burns, liver cell transplants for liver damage, muscle cell therapies for muscular dystrophy and heart disease. This bill before us could ban research on cartilage cells for reconstruction of joints damaged by arthritis or injuries. It could ban cells for use of genetic therapy to treat 5,000 different genetic diseases, including cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, schizophrenia, depression, and other diseases. S. 1601 could permanently ban all of this type of research. In addition, under this bill, scientists could be thrown in jail for 10 years if they conduct this research--research which may not have any single thing to do with cloning a human being. Last year, during this hearing on human cloning research, someone asked, ``Are there appropriate limits to human knowledge?'' Quite frankly, I responded--and I respond again--to say that I do not think there are any appropriate limits to human knowledge, none whatsoever. I think it is the very essence of our humanity and human nature. As long as science is done ethically and openly and with the informed consent of all parties, I do not think Congress should attempt to place limits on the pursuit of knowledge. To those who suggest that cloning research is an attempt to play God, I invite you to take your ranks alongside Pope Paul V who, in 1616, persecuted the great astronomer Galileo for heresy--for saying that the Earth indeed revolved around the Sun and not otherwise. But we don't have to go back that far. Not too long ago in our Nation's history, Americans viewed artificial insemination as abhorrent and its use was banned as being morally repugnant--even for animals; even for animals. There was an attempt to ban artificial insemination. Of course, now that is about all we use on the farm these days. Heart transplants were scorned and X-rays were considered witchcraft. But today we don't think twice about test tube babies, in vitro fertilization, or organ transplants. Throughout the 1950s, whenever we pushed the bounds of human knowledge, there has always been a constant refrain of saying, ``Stop-- you are playing God.'' But if a couple did not have a baby and decides to seek artificial insemination, is that playing God? If a patient is dying of kidney disease and a doctor decided to transplant healthy kidneys, is that playing God? If a patient is dying of heart disease and receives a heart transplant, are we playing God? Others say that human cloning research is demeaning to human nature. I am sorry; I don't think so. I think that any attempt to limit the pursuit of human knowledge is demeaning to human nature. I think it is the very essence of our humanity to ask how and why and if and what. I think it is demeaning to human nature to raise unfounded fears among the people of America. I think that is demeaning to human nature. As I said, I think the finest part and the very essence of our human nature and our humanity is to ask why, how, and what if. It is our very humanity that compels us to probe the universe from the subatomic to the cosmos, and, yes, from blastocysts to the full human anatomy. Our humanity compels us to do that. However, I must admit that I think it is rightly proper for us as policymakers to ask how human cloning research is going to affect our Nation. It is right and proper for us to examine the use of public funds for scientific research. But I urge my colleagues to proceed with caution on this legislation. What we are talking about here is not the cloning of a human being. What we are talking about is the cloning of cells, and without further research and appropriate regulations, many people will die and become ill and spend very, very miserable lives when that could otherwise be alleviated through this cloning research. So I have to ask: Why the rush to pass hastily drafted legislation on this very complex technical subject? We need to take the time to consider what could be the unintended consequences. The U.S. Congress and the Senate should tread very softly before sending scientists to jail for what could be promising research to cure diseases and disabilities. Mr. President, there was an article in Time Magazine dated February 9, 1998, called ``The Case for Cloning.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for example, I want to read a couple of things from the article. It says: House Majority Leader Dick Armey has thrown his weight behind a bill that would ban human cloning permanently. ``This is the right thing to do, at the right time, for the sake of human dignity,'' said Armey. ``How can you put a statute of limitations on right and wrong?'' Right and wrong? It is wrong to conduct cloning research that might enable us to grow a liver out of a person's own DNA? To grow skin out of a person's own DNA? Perhaps even to grow heart tissue, or even a full heart, out of a person's own DNA, so there would be no rejection possibilities? It is wrong to do research in cloning of cells that might permit my nephew, Kelly, who, at the age of 19, got injured in the military, his spinal cord was broken and he has been a quadriplegic since and still holds out the hope that research someday is going to enable him to walk again? And, yes, cloning research might be able to rebuild those kinds of cells from his own DNA that will get those nerve endings going again so that my nephew can walk again. That research is wrong? I ask who appointed the House majority leader as the arbiter of what is right and wrong in biomedical research? Well, as the drafter of this article went on: . . . hasty legislation could easily be too restrictive. Last year, for instance, Florida considered a law that would have barred the cloning of human DNA, a routine procedure in biomedical research. You might say that's not what we are doing here. But we could be sending the wrong signals to State legislatures, again, to try the same thing: Cloning individual human cells [the writer goes on], however, is another matter. Biologists are already talking about harnessing for medical purposes the technique that produced a sheep called Dolly. They might, for example, obtain healthy cells from a patient with leukemia or a burn victim and then transfer the nucleus of each cell into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Coddled in culture dishes, these embryonic clones--each genetically identical to the patient from which the nuclei came--would begin to divide. The cells would not have to grow into a fetus, however. The addition of powerful growth factors can ensure that the clones develop only into specialized cells and tissue. For the leukemia patient, for example, the cloned cells could provide an infusion of fresh bone marrow, and for the burn victim, grafts of brand-new skin. Unlike cells from an unrelated donor, these cloned cells would incur no danger of rejection, patients would be spared the need to take powerful drugs to suppress the immune system. And this, I think, says it all: Given its potential benefit,'' says Dr. Robert Winston, a fertility expert at London's Hammersmith Hospital, ``I would argue that it would be unethical not to continue this line of research. Mr. President, I hope that tomorrow, when we vote on this, that the Senate will choose to be on the side of the Galileos, those who want to expand human knowledge, those who will not be constricted by outmoded and outdated ideas, who understand it's the very nature of our humanity to ask how and why and what if. No, not to be on the side of those who wanted to keep the Sun moving around the Earth, but to be on the side of progress and advancement, enlightenment and unlimited human potential. S. 1601 needs to be amended drastically. Frankly, it needs to be sent to committee. There is no rush. Dr. Seed--is that his name? Yes, Dr. Seed from Chicago is not going to clone any human being. No reputable scientist or doctor that I have spoken to, and I have spoken to quite a few of them, believes he is anywhere near that for years and years and years. But he is making a name for himself. He is on all the talk shows, that's for sure. He has become notorious, a public figure, and I guess a lot of people like to do that. But just because he's irresponsible doesn't mean we ought to be irresponsible. Let's take a careful look at this. Let's have our hearings. Let's bring in the experts. Let's bring in the bioethicists, the people from all the different communities, to see what parameters, if any, should be drawn on this. The parameters of S. 1601 are too constrictive. To send scientists to jail for up to 10 years for doing the kind of research that can enable my nephew to walk again is not the kind of legislation that we ought to be passing here. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in sponsoring the Child Care ACCESS Act to improve the affordability, availability and quality of child care. One of the major accomplishments of the last session was to help make college more affordable for working Americans. We passed bipartisan legislation to increase Pell Grants to the highest level in history and to provide tax credits for college expenses. As a result, more Americans will now be able to afford college. We must now turn our attention, with the same firm resolve, to the education of our young children and making child care affordable, available and safe. This must be the top priority for this Congress. The recent research on brain development has provided the importance of the first three years of a child's life. Early education opportunities are essential for the positive emotional, physical and social development of children. Last year's appropriations bill included several important provisions related to early childhood education and development. We increased funding for the Early Head Start program by $66 million and provided and 11% increase in early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. We also provided an additional $50 million for the Child Care and Development Block Grant to improve the quality of care for infants. I would have liked to do more, but we were constrained by provisions in the budget agreement. These accomplishments set the stage for us to do much more during 1998. Mr. President, many low and middle-income families simply cannot afford high quality or even get decent child care. According to the Children's Defense Fund, child care can cost between $3,000 and $8,000 for each child. This clearly makes child care inaccessible to many low- income and middle-income working parents with young children. The need for safe and affordable child care is great and this legislation will provide families with the help they need. Last year, the President and First Lady sponsored the first White House Conference on Child Care. The child care concerns facing families was summed up quite simply by Secretary of Health and Human Service Secretary Donna Shalala. Can they afford it? Can they get it? Can they trust it? This legislation is a comprehensive response to those questions. First, the bill improves the affordability of child care for low- income families by providing additional resources for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This new funding will double the number of families who can qualify for these subsidies. Second, it provides significant additional assistance for many middle income families struggling with these huge costs. We have all heard concerns about the difficulty working families have in securing child care subsidies. In Iowa, eligibility for Block Grant assistance is restricted to families who earn less than 125% of poverty--or less than $1,389 per month for a family of three. I have long championed the need for parents to have the opportunity to work rather than to be on welfare. But, we cannot expect that to happen without sufficient resources to pay for child care. I am pleased that this legislation includes a significant increase in the child care tax credit, similar to a measure I introduced in 1996 and 1997. A key feature of this legislation is to make the credit refundable so that those will the greatest need--those that making near the minimum wage would be able to receive this tax benefit. Under current law, they are not eligible. However, low-income families are not the only ones who are struggling to pay for child care. Middle income families also need relief and this legislation expands the Dependent Care Tax Credit and makes this credit refundable. The limits of the existing tax credit was last changed in 1982 and it has been seriously eroded by inflation. Under existing law, a working family with two children in child care making $30,000 can receive only $960 which, in Iowa often that amounts to only a fraction of child care costs. This is a huge burden on young working families. The tax law in this area is especially unfair since other tax provisions allow some taxpayers with generous company benefits to acquire tax reductions equal to over $1500 for child care with only a single child in day care. In 1996 and 1997, I introduced legislation to substantially increase the assistance available to working families and to make those benefits refundable so lower income families would also benefit. My proposal provided for a benefit of up to $2300 when two children are in day care. I am pleased that the proposal being introduced today, and the proposal submitted by the President reaches that same level. Because of need to keep this overall proposal within our ability to pay for it without eating into the surplus, the benefits start to phase down for families making over $30,000 in this proposal. I would favor starting to phase out the size of the increased benefit at a higher level covering a larger share of middle income families if we can find the additional offsetting funding. A key feature of the tax provision is to make the credit refundable so that those with the greatest need--those that making near the minimum wage would be able to get this benefit, that is currently available to higher income families. While some make technical arguments against the provision regarding budget and tax policy issues, I feel that we must do more to help working families bear this considerable cost and help their children receive decent child care so important to establish a good foundation for their years in school and thereafter. And, I find it most unreasonable that those with the most need would be receiving less benefit then those with far more resources. After our constituents tell us about the trouble they have paying for child care, the next thing we hear is that they can't find child care, especially for children who are school age. An estimated five million children spend some times each week as ``latchkey'' children without the supervision of an adult. Further, the Department of Justice tells us that most juvenile crime occurs during the hours of 3 and 8 pm. This legislation addresses this critical need by expanding funding to improve the supply and quality of child care for school age children. In addition, more funds would be made available to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers to help public schools create before and after school activities for their students. Finally, families want quality child care that they can trust and this legislation provides additional funding to encourage states to improve the quality of child care. These funds could be used for a variety of different activities that we know make a difference such as providing additional training for providers or reducing provider-child ratios. The legislation also provides a modest tax credit to allow a parent to stay at home with children under the age of one and provides a tax credit to employers for expenses related to child care for their workers. Mr. President, this legislation provides the most comprehensive response for families struggling to meet their child care needs and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in sponsoring the Child Care ACCESS Act to improve the affordability, availability and quality of child care. One of the major accomplishments of the last session was to help make college more affordable for working Americans. We passed bipartisan legislation to increase Pell Grants to the highest level in history and to provide tax credits for college expenses. As a result, more Americans will now be able to afford college. We must now turn our attention, with the same firm resolve, to the education of our young children and making child care affordable, available and safe. This must be the top priority for this Congress. The recent research on brain development has provided the importance of the first three years of a child's life. Early education opportunities are essential for the positive emotional, physical and social development of children. Last year's appropriations bill included several important provisions related to early childhood education and development. We increased funding for the Early Head Start program by $66 million and provided and 11% increase in early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. We also provided an additional $50 million for the Child Care and Development Block Grant to improve the quality of care for infants. I would have liked to do more, but we were constrained by provisions in the budget agreement. These accomplishments set the stage for us to do much more during 1998. Mr. President, many low and middle-income families simply cannot afford high quality or even get decent child care. According to the Children's Defense Fund, child care can cost between $3,000 and $8,000 for each child. This clearly makes child care inaccessible to many low- income and middle-income working parents with young children. The need for safe and affordable child care is great and this legislation will provide families with the help they need. Last year, the President and First Lady sponsored the first White House Conference on Child Care. The child care concerns facing families was summed up quite simply by Secretary of Health and Human Service Secretary Donna Shalala. Can they afford it? Can they get it? Can they trust it? This legislation is a comprehensive response to those questions. First, the bill improves the affordability of child care for low- income families by providing additional resources for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This new funding will double the number of families who can qualify for these subsidies. Second, it provides significant additional assistance for many middle income families struggling with these huge costs. We have all heard concerns about the difficulty working families have in securing child care subsidies. In Iowa, eligibility for Block Grant assistance is restricted to families who earn less than 125% of poverty--or less than $1,389 per month for a family of three. I have long championed the need for parents to have the opportunity to work rather than to be on welfare. But, we cannot expect that to happen without sufficient resources to pay for child care. I am pleased that this legislation includes a significant increase in the child care tax credit, similar to a measure I introduced in 1996 and 1997. A key feature of this legislation is to make the credit refundable so that those will the greatest need--those that making near the minimum wage would be able to receive this tax benefit. Under current law, they are not eligible. However, low-income families are not the only ones who are struggling to pay for child care. Middle income families also need relief and this legislation expands the Dependent Care Tax Credit and makes this credit refundable. The limits of the existing tax credit was last changed in 1982 and it has been seriously eroded by inflation. Under existing law, a working family with two children in child care making $30,000 can receive only $960 which, in Iowa often that amounts to only a fraction of child care costs. This is a huge burden on young working families. The tax law in this area is especially unfair since other tax provisions allow some taxpayers with generous company benefits to acquire tax reductions equal to over $1500 for child care with only a single child in day care. In 1996 and 1997, I introduced legislation to substantially increase the assistance available to working families and to make those benefits refundable so lower income families would also benefit. My proposal provided for a benefit of up to $2300 when two children are in day care. I am pleased that the proposal being introduced today, and the proposal submitted by the President reaches that same level. Because of need to keep this overall proposal within our ability to pay for it without eating into the surplus, the benefits start to phase down for families making over $30,000 in this proposal. I would favor starting to phase out the size of the increased benefit at a higher level covering a larger share of middle income families if we can find the additional offsetting funding. A key feature of the tax provision is to make the credit refundable so that those with the greatest need--those that making near the minimum wage would be able to get this benefit, that is currently available to higher income families. While some make technical arguments against the provision regarding budget and tax policy issues, I feel that we must do more to help working families bear this considerable cost and help their children receive decent child care so important to establish a good foundation for their years in school and thereafter. And, I find it most unreasonable that those with the most need would be receiving less benefit then those with far more resources. After our constituents tell us about the trouble they have paying for child care, the next thing we hear is that they can't find child care, especially for children who are school age. An estimated five million children spend some times each week as ``latchkey'' children without the supervision of an adult. Further, the Department of Justice tells us that most juvenile crime occurs during the hours of 3 and 8 pm. This legislation addresses this critical need by expanding funding to improve the supply and quality of child care for school age children. In addition, more funds would be made available to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers to help public schools create before and after school activities for their students. Finally, families want quality child care that they can trust and this legislation provides additional funding to encourage states to improve the quality of child care. These funds could be used for a variety of different activities that we know make a difference such as providing additional training for providers or reducing provider-child ratios. The legislation also provides a modest tax credit to allow a parent to stay at home with children under the age of one and provides a tax credit to employers for expenses related to child care for their workers. Mr. President, this legislation provides the most comprehensive response for families struggling to meet their child care needs and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes to speak about an individual and a case that is now taking place in the State of Oregon. The individual I refer to is one Casey Martin, an outstanding golfer who just happens to have a disability. I am also referring to the PGA Tour's determination to exclude Casey from participating in a professional sport for which he is eminently well qualified and by which he has attempted to earn his living. The PGA Tour has said no, Casey can't play with the cart he needs to accommodate his disability. The Tour wants to keep Casey out because of his disability and because of a certain rule and tradition. Mr. President, Casey Martin has had the guts and the gumption not to back down, but to take on the PGA Tour. Last week, Senator Dole and I held a press conference in Washington, DC, with Casey Martin to show our support for him and to state for the record that as two of the primary sponsors of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it certainly was our intention, and the legislative intent, to cover this type of a situation. We wanted to state for the record that the ADA did, in fact, apply to the Casey Martin situation. Yesterday, Casey Martin's case started. His trial began in Oregon. Casey Martin has a powerful story. He has worked, he has practiced, he has played, he has spent an enormous amount of time and energy--a lot of it painful--reaching the highest levels of one of America's most popular professional sports. It has been for him a very difficult road. Now Casey stands at a roadblock, much like the roadblock that millions of Americans with disabilities have confronted--Americans who each and every day only ask for reasonable accommodations and modifications that will allow them to live their lives and pursue their dreams just like everyone else. We passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to give Casey Martin, and others with disabilities, an equal opportunity to fully participate in American life. That means in everything--employment, education, recreation, social activities and opportunities. I have often said that ADA really stands for the ``American Dream for All.'' That is what it is all about, and that is what it is about in this case, too--will Casey Martin have the opportunity to pursue his American dream? I would like to take a moment to compliment those who have already shown their support for Casey Martin. Particularly, I would like to congratulate Mr. Phil Knight and all of the folks at Nike. Their commercial that they are running now showcasing Casey Martin makes a very powerful statement about the ability of people who also happen to have disabilities. I would also like to compliment the golfers, like Greg Norman and Tom Latham, two outstanding golfers, who have publicly stated their support for Casey Martin. Mr. President, I am here to say that Casey Martin should have an opportunity to compete in the PGA Tour and to say that the ADA guarantees him that right. As Senator Dole said last week at our press conference, PGA does not stand for ``please go away,'' and the PGA Tour shouldn't try to send Casey Martin away from a game for which he is otherwise well-qualified. Casey is someone who spent his entire life playing golf; he played in college, along with Tiger Woods, at Stanford in the NCAA; he is a golfer who, with his disability, recently won one of the tours, a Nike tour in Lakeland, Florida. So this man is eminently well- qualified to play professional golf. I am disappointed--I am sorely disappointed--in the PGA Tour's failure to reach an agreement with Casey, to come to some kind of an accommodation that would allow him to compete and earn his living being a professional golfer. As I understand it, the sticking point here is the PGA Tour's tradition and rule of no carts. Well, Mr. President, I believe there are values to upholding traditions and rules, but there is no merit in rigidly standing on tradition simply because of outmoded assumptions. Over the years, all kinds of traditions have scuttled the aspirations and limited the possibilities of millions of Americans with disabilities. People with disabilities just didn't do certain things. I always tell the story about my brother who I grew up with who had a disability. He became deaf at an early age. He was sent away to the Iowa School for the Deaf and Dumb--that is what it was called in those days, the School for the Deaf and Dumb. The Presiding Officer sitting in the Chair may be a few years younger than I am, but I remember when I was younger, that is what they called deaf people, they were deaf and dumb. As my brother said to me, ``I may be deaf, but I am not dumb.'' So we have done away with that tradition. We don't refer to people as deaf and dumb, and we don't have deaf and dumb schools any longer either. But when he went to that school, they told him he could be one of three things: He could be a baker, a shoe cobbler or a printer's assistant. That was it. There was nothing else he could do. ``That is it, you can pick one of those three things.'' He said, ``I don't want to be any one of them.'' They said, ``Fine, you are going to be a baker then.'' Tradition and rules had it that deaf people could only do certain things. That has all gone by the wayside. We see deaf Americans now doing everything. Why, we even have a person who is deaf who is the president of a college. So we have done away with a lot of these old traditions, and the ADA is helping to change the old traditions. It is asking us to rethink our assumptions about people with disabilities and what they can do. It is asking us to look at reasonable modifications that would permit them, as I said, to pursue their American dream. The ADA is intended to include people in the mainstream of American life. It requires entities to make--and I quote from the law-- ``reasonable modifications'' to ``policies, practices and procedures'' so long as those modifications do not create a ``fundamental alteration'' to the program or activity. So, Mr. President, rules and traditions that create barriers for people with disabilities are rules and traditions that must be changed. I am reminded of a recent incident here in the Senate, where we were asked to make a reasonable modification to a Senate policy. A staff person with a vision impairment was precluded from coming on to the Senate floor with her guide dog because we had a no-animals rule on the floor. Certainly, it sounded like a very reasonable rule and tradition. We don't want animals running all over the floor of the Senate. You don't want me bringing my pet dog on to the Senate floor. Well, that was a rule and tradition. So we had a debate about whether we should change the rule to accommodate the needs of the staff person. We talked about the history, the traditions of the Senate. Ultimately, we did the right thing. We made a reasonable modification to that rule and that tradition so the staff person could do her job and bring her dog on to the Senate floor. Allowing Casey Martin to use a golf cart is a reasonable modification under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The cart will help level the playing field a little on which Casey Martin competes without giving him an undo advantage. What we are talking about here goes to the heart of the principles and the foundation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The PGA Tour can say all they want, that a cart somehow alters the fundamental operation of the golf game. Yet, if that is so, then why do they allow carts to be used on the Senior Tour? Why do they allow carts to be used in the qualifying rounds for the younger people? When the court enjoined the PGA Tour and said, yes, the Tour must allow Casey to use a cart, and he used a cart, the Tour said, ``We will let everybody use carts.'' I am told that out of 168 golfers, only 15 decided to use a golf cart. I thought to myself, if a golf cart gives players that much of an advantage, why wouldn't everyone use them? So I consulted some of my golfing friends. I am not a golfer, but I have friends who are avid golfers. One individual told me, ``Well, there is nothing like walking a golf course, because when you walk, you feel the wind and you see how often it gusts and you know what direction it is blowing in. You get a feel for the lay of the fairway, and you can think about your next shot and what went wrong on the last one. You get in a golf cart and you lose all that feel.'' I have tested this hypothesis with other golfers, and they say, ``Yes, that is true.'' Allowing Casey Martin to use a golf cart will not give him any advantage at all in the PGA Tour. In fact, it may very well present a disadvantage. So, again, I just think this is one of those old rules and traditions that needs a reasonable modification under the ADA so that Casey Martin can compete in professional golf. Lastly, Mr. President, Casey Martin may not fit the stereotype of what the PGA considers a competitive golfer, but millions of Americans who don't fit the typical image of a golfer have now taken up the game. It has moved from an exclusive sport played at private country clubs to an inclusive sport played by a cross-section of Americans. When I was growing up in my State of Iowa, I bet I could count on one hand the number of golf courses in the State of Iowa, all at private country clubs, exclusively played by those people who belonged to those clubs. We have 99 counties in Iowa, Mr. President. I bet you every one has a golf course now. Some of them have more than one. Farmers out in the field get off the tractor and come in and play a game of golf. So it is no longer this sort of exclusive game it once was. Everyone is playing golf. Barriers to the sport have come down. As I said earlier, barriers and traditions that prevent people with disabilities from fully participating are barriers and traditions that must come down. Holding up a barrier for Casey Martin sends exactly the wrong message not only to Americans with disabilities but to each and every one of us. I am sorry that the PGA Tour saw fit to take this to court. They first tried to argue that they weren't even covered by the ADA, when the law was plain on its face they were covered. They went to court and, of course, the court threw that out and said, ``Of course, you are covered.'' Now they are back in court again to drag this thing out. I wish they hadn't done it, because that very action alone tends to create a chilling effect. A lot of Americans will say, ``Well, I may have a disability, but if I want to do something and there is a rule or tradition against it, do you mean I have to go to court? Do you mean I have to hire lawyers? I have to go through all that just to get my rights?'' That is the message the PGA Tour, by going to court, is sending to Americans all over this country. Mr. President, people with disabilities get up every morning, and they have a tough day ahead of them. They have to prepare for that day, many times with the aid of an assistant, perhaps they have to use a wheelchair or get in a special bus to go to work. It takes a lot of effort, a lot of time. They don't have the time and they don't want to go to court, but they want the Americans with Disabilities Act to work. People with disabilities want entities like the PGA Tour to use some common sense and some common decency to make reasonable modifications so that people like Casey Martin can pursue their American dreams. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in co- sponsoring the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. I particularly wish to thank my Republican colleagues, Senators DeWine and Jeffords, for developing this bill in a bipartisan manner. The bill that we introduce today represents the work of Republicans, Democrats, and the Administration. I am pleased that our work together continues the long history of bipartisanship in developing legislation that addresses the needs of persons with disabilities. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program provides $2.2 billion in formula grant assistance to States to help individuals with disabilities prepare for an 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 persons with disabilities, and the numbers reflect that: The percentage of individuals who reported that their income was their primary source of support increased from 18% at the time of application to 71% at the time of exit from the program; The percentage of individuals with earned income of any kind increased from 22% at application to 93% at program exit; and The number of individuals working at or above the Federal minimum wage rate increased from 18% at application to 86% at closure. In 1992, Congress made major changes to the Act, namely, increasing consumer participation, streamlining processes, and reducing unnecessary paperwork. In the bill we introduce 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 so that individuals with disabilities can benefit from them. This bill strengthens the role of the consumer throughout the vocational rehabilitation process, particularly in the development of the individual's employment plan. It reduces unnecessary burdens on State VR agencies by streamlining the State plan. 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. The due process protections provided in the State Grant program to VR applicants and clients are strengthened by eliminating State VR agency review of decisions by impartial hearing officers. The bill would also require States to provide for voluntary mediation (modeled on the provisions in IDEA) as another mechanism to resolve disputes. Access of Social Security beneficiaries to VR services if facilitated, and unnecessary gatekeeping is eliminated, by making SSI and SSDI beneficiaries presumptively eligible for services under the VR State Grants program. This change would eliminate the need for the VR agency to determine on a case-by-case basis whether these individuals ``require'' VR services in order to gain 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 bill strengthens the provisions regarding procurement by Federal agencies of technology that is accessible to individuals with disabilities. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to its passage.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join Chairman Lugar, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy in introducing legislation to reauthorize several programs, primarily relating to nutrition assistance for children, whose authorizations are set to end this year. These programs are vitally important to our nation, and I applaud the introduction of this legislation as a clear demonstration of our strong support for them in the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and our commitment to reenacting authorizing legislation this year. The bill introduced today is a simple extension of expiring authorizations, without amendments or modifications, and thus only marks the beginning of the legislative process. As Chairman Lugar has indicated, the Committee will complete the normal child nutrition reauthorization process, as in past years, allowing for full discussion and consideration of the programs requiring reauthorization as well as those having permanent authorizations. I look forward to working with colleagues on the Committee, in this body, and in the House of Representatives on this very important legislation. An essential part of our work on this reauthorization bill involves examining the child nutrition programs to ensure they are functioning well, particularly in responding to changing circumstances and new demands. Another, no less important, part of our efforts must focus on making the programs more effective by finding better ways to address longstanding unmet needs and reach individuals who are not adequately served by the programs in their present form. Of course, we must always be alert to opportunities for streamlining, paring paperwork and reducing administrative burdens. A number of thoughtful proposals for improvements and modifications have already been made, and I know that we will receive more of them as work on the legislation proceeds. All of the programs involved in this reauthorization are important, but I want to mention specifically a few of my priorities. We should strengthen the school breakfast program in order to reach students who need school breakfasts but do not currently have access to them. We also should improve the child nutrition programs in ways that enhance their effectiveness in helping families obtain quality child care. And we need to ensure that the summer food program is adequately serving kids who without it are quite vulnerable once school is out for the summer. In addition to reauthorizing the Iowa and Kentucky child care nutrition pilot project, we ought to examine its positive results for guidance in shaping our national approach to child care nutrition assistance. With respect to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, it is important to continue an effective competitive bidding system for infant formula and to extend and strengthen the WIC farmers market program. Nothing is more important to the future of our nation than its children, and nothing is more important to children than the sound nutrition they need each day. It is beyond dispute that good nutrition is critical to physical growth, intellectual development and lives that are healthy, productive and happy. Trying to educate children who are hungry or malnourished is just as foolish as trying to build a house on a crumbling foundation. Federal child nutrition programs constitute investments in the future--of our children and our nation. This legislation will ensure that we continue to reap the immeasurable dividends of those wise investments.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in co- sponsoring the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. I particularly wish to thank my Republican colleagues, Senators DeWine and Jeffords, for developing this bill in a bipartisan manner. The bill that we introduce today represents the work of Republicans, Democrats, and the Administration. I am pleased that our work together continues the long history of bipartisanship in developing legislation that addresses the needs of persons with disabilities. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program provides $2.2 billion in formula grant assistance to States to help individuals with disabilities prepare for an 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 persons with disabilities, and the numbers reflect that: The percentage of individuals who reported that their income was their primary source of support increased from 18% at the time of application to 71% at the time of exit from the program; The percentage of individuals with earned income of any kind increased from 22% at application to 93% at program exit; and The number of individuals working at or above the Federal minimum wage rate increased from 18% at application to 86% at closure. In 1992, Congress made major changes to the Act, namely, increasing consumer participation, streamlining processes, and reducing unnecessary paperwork. In the bill we introduce 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 so that individuals with disabilities can benefit from them. This bill strengthens the role of the consumer throughout the vocational rehabilitation process, particularly in the development of the individual's employment plan. It reduces unnecessary burdens on State VR agencies by streamlining the State plan. 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. The due process protections provided in the State Grant program to VR applicants and clients are strengthened by eliminating State VR agency review of decisions by impartial hearing officers. The bill would also require States to provide for voluntary mediation (modeled on the provisions in IDEA) as another mechanism to resolve disputes. Access of Social Security beneficiaries to VR services if facilitated, and unnecessary gatekeeping is eliminated, by making SSI and SSDI beneficiaries presumptively eligible for services under the VR State Grants program. This change would eliminate the need for the VR agency to determine on a case-by-case basis whether these individuals ``require'' VR services in order to gain 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 bill strengthens the provisions regarding procurement by Federal agencies of technology that is accessible to individuals with disabilities. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill and look forward to its passage.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join Chairman Lugar, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy in introducing legislation to reauthorize several programs, primarily relating to nutrition assistance for children, whose authorizations are set to end this year. These programs are vitally important to our nation, and I applaud the introduction of this legislation as a clear demonstration of our strong support for them in the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and our commitment to reenacting authorizing legislation this year. The bill introduced today is a simple extension of expiring authorizations, without amendments or modifications, and thus only marks the beginning of the legislative process. As Chairman Lugar has indicated, the Committee will complete the normal child nutrition reauthorization process, as in past years, allowing for full discussion and consideration of the programs requiring reauthorization as well as those having permanent authorizations. I look forward to working with colleagues on the Committee, in this body, and in the House of Representatives on this very important legislation. An essential part of our work on this reauthorization bill involves examining the child nutrition programs to ensure they are functioning well, particularly in responding to changing circumstances and new demands. Another, no less important, part of our efforts must focus on making the programs more effective by finding better ways to address longstanding unmet needs and reach individuals who are not adequately served by the programs in their present form. Of course, we must always be alert to opportunities for streamlining, paring paperwork and reducing administrative burdens. A number of thoughtful proposals for improvements and modifications have already been made, and I know that we will receive more of them as work on the legislation proceeds. All of the programs involved in this reauthorization are important, but I want to mention specifically a few of my priorities. We should strengthen the school breakfast program in order to reach students who need school breakfasts but do not currently have access to them. We also should improve the child nutrition programs in ways that enhance their effectiveness in helping families obtain quality child care. And we need to ensure that the summer food program is adequately serving kids who without it are quite vulnerable once school is out for the summer. In addition to reauthorizing the Iowa and Kentucky child care nutrition pilot project, we ought to examine its positive results for guidance in shaping our national approach to child care nutrition assistance. With respect to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, it is important to continue an effective competitive bidding system for infant formula and to extend and strengthen the WIC farmers market program. Nothing is more important to the future of our nation than its children, and nothing is more important to children than the sound nutrition they need each day. It is beyond dispute that good nutrition is critical to physical growth, intellectual development and lives that are healthy, productive and happy. Trying to educate children who are hungry or malnourished is just as foolish as trying to build a house on a crumbling foundation. Federal child nutrition programs constitute investments in the future--of our children and our nation. This legislation will ensure that we continue to reap the immeasurable dividends of those wise investments.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Mikulski and many of my colleagues today to support reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. I want to especially commend Senator Mikulski for her invaluable leadership on this issue. She brought the problem of poor quality mammography screening to the Senate's attention several years ago and authored the historic legislation we are today reauthorizing. As many of you know, I lost my sisters at an early age because of breast cancer. This experience has helped to make me acutely aware of the need for research on and improved early detection of breast cancer. I've always thought if they had had access to quality mammography screening, they would be alive with us today. Starting in 1990, as chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, I worked with Senator Mikulski and others to start and fund a program at the CDC to provide screening for lower income women without insurance. And in 1992, I offered an amendment to dedicate $210 million in the Defense budget for breast cancer research. Because of this legislation, funding for breast cancer research has been included in the Defense Department budget every year since 1992, and will be included again in Fiscal Year 1998. It is clear that if we are to win the war on breast cancer we must continue to support research on improved treatments, but we must also ensure that breast cancer is detected early enough to apply these treatments effectively. The need for legislating mammography quality standards is obvious--every year approximately 180,000 women will be diagnosed and 44,000 women will die of breast cancer. We can prolong and save the lives of millions of women if we can detect the cancer early in its development. The earlier we can diagnose breast cancer, the sooner a women can begin to receive appropriate treatment, and the more likely it is that she will survive. It is vital that all women have access to mammograms which are both properly performed and accurately analyzed. This screening is a very powerful weapon in the battle against cancer. Early diagnosis, and consequently early treatment, depend upon accurate evaluations of breast tissue. This means that the health care professionals taking mammograms and reading mammograms must be properly trained. This Act sets forth requirements that all mammography facilities meet stringent standards in terms of equipment used, personnel, and reporting of mammography findings. Congress must act quickly to pass this reauthorization so that women throughout our nation can be confident that they are receiving the safest, most reliable mammography available. Without these standards, women do not have such guarantees. They would be forced to place their lives in the hands of a random patchwork of Federal, State, and voluntary standards. This is unacceptable. We cannot return to the days before this law was passed, when women were misdiagnosed because mammography clinics did not have standards for quality control. Women also deserve the best technology available when it comes to early detection of cancer because advanced technology means more accurate, and therefore earlier diagnosis. One such advance is digital mammography. This screening technique involves the creation of digital images which are more easily visualized and can also be stored and forwarded to other medical sites. This can provide women in rural areas with vital access to expert medical diagnosticians. When women and their doctors have access to the best technology available, such as digital mammography, it can mean the difference between life and death. It can also mean money saved, because it is cheaper to treat a small, confined tumor than it is to treat a full- blown metastactic cancer which has spread to other organ systems. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, but it does not have to be the No. 1 cancer killer among women in the United States because we have ways to detect it early on. The National Cancer Institute advises that ``high-quality mammography combined with a clinical breast exam is the most effective technology presently available to detect breast tumors.'' We have an obligation to American women to ensure that the mammographies they receive meet high-quality federal standards. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and I look forward to its speedy passage into law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill requiring studies of the health effects of nuclear weapons testing. This would build upon the study by the National Cancer Institute that was released October 1 of this year. On October 1, following some major news coverage, the NCI testified before the Senate Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on their efforts to connect nuclear weapons testing with thyroid cancer. The NCI testimony and the report released that day were startling. Atomic bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950's exposed millions of Americans--particularly children--to large amounts of radioactive iodine-131. The levels of radioactive iodine exposure is far worse than previously reported by the Government. Hot spots where the iodine-131 fallout was greatest includes many counties far away from Nevada, including New York, Massachusetts, and Iowa. Hot spots were identified as receiving as high as 5-16 rads of exposure of iodine-131, with children being exposed to a risk up to 10 times higher. Iodine-131, which accumulates in the thyroid gland, has been linked to thyroid cancer. To give some understanding of the enormity of the U.S. atomic tests in Nevada, 116 million curies of iodine-131 were released in the United States above ground tests. This compares to 7.3 million from Chernobyl disaster the former Soviet Union. The NCI report clearly shows that the U.S. atomic tests exposed a lot of people to risks now considered unacceptable. The topic hits very close to home for me. During the 1950's, I was living in the small town of Cumming located in south-central Iowa. Along with many Iowans, I lived in the hot spots detailed by the NCI study. Further, like many of my neighbors, I drank milk from the cows kept on our farm. This increased the risk faced by myself and my family because radioactive iodine accumulates in milk. The NCI report has attracted a lot of attention. Much of this stems from the history of nuclear weapons testing. As we all know, the U.S. Government was fairly cavalier with its nuclear weapons program during the early days of the cold war. Historians can argue about the reasons, but most people recognize the terrible toll suffered by the American public because of our nuclear weapons program. Only recently has the extent of exposure to radiation and other hazards to the ``down winders'' living near nuclear weapons sites such as the Nevada test site, Hanford in Washington State, and the Marshall Islanders in the South Pacific. So it is no surprise that a report detailing exposure to millions of Americans would attract attention. However, we need to continue the research into the health impact of nuclear weapons testing. That is why I am introducing this bill to require further study by the Department of Health and Human Services. The HHS study will build upon the NCI study. There is strong evidence that exposure to other radioactive isotopes that were spread by nuclear weapons tests such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and barium 140 could lead to bone cancer, leukemia, higher infant mortality, and a host of other illnesses. This needs to be examined. So do the nuclear weapons tests that took place not only at the Nevada test site, but at other places as well. For example, the NCI report did not examine the nuclear weapons testing conducted by the United States in Mississippi, Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado, or the South Pacific. The studies should research not only the United States nuclear weapons program, but also tests by foreign nations including the Soviet Union and its successor states, France, China, India, and Great Britain. I also believe that such studies should be conducted in an open manner. For example, this bill will require that the studies fall under the review authority of the Advisory Committee on Energy Related Studies and other entities established by the Federal Government to ensure public accountability over health related studies pertaining to nuclear weapon research, production, and testing. The bill also requires that HHS report to Congress within 90 days of passage as to its plan for completing the studies, as well as report to Congress each year on its progress. This is a simple bill that seeks some understanding of the health consequences of our nuclear weapons testing program. I would ask my fellow colleagues to review and support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Rural Cooperative Act, a measure proposed by the administration. Under current law, the Rural Business--Cooperative Services within the Rural Development Administration provides a wide variety of services for farm cooperatives. They conduct economic analysis, provide advice on how to form and best operate cooperatives and a wide variety of other services for farm cooperatives, including how to deal with the complex laws under which cooperatives operate. Farm cooperatives are very important in rural America. They allow farmers to come together to purchase goods, to sell their products, and to process their agricultural commodities under farmer ownership. Some cooperatives only perform one of those functions. Some do two or three of them. In all cases, they allow farmers to come together and more effectively bargain for a fair price. Funding for cooperative services within the Department of Agriculture has been under considerable constraint in recent years and it is now difficult for the Department to provide the full range of services allowed by law to farm cooperatives. I do not want to see those services reduced. But, I do agree with the administration, that cooperative services should also be available to those in rural areas, in addition to farmers who want to form cooperatives. Therefore, I am introducing the administration-proposed bill to broaden the responsibilities of the Department in this area. I do so, requesting that the administration increase its request for funding to carry out these additional responsibilities and will be urging that the Appropriations Committee appropriately increase funding in this area. The bill provides that rural residents who are considering forming a cooperative for one of a number of purposes or who have formed a cooperative may receive a variety of kinds of assistance from USDA. The types of cooperatives that would benefit would include those purchasing consumer goods, business products or services, health care, utilities, communications, child and day care, housing, credit, insurance, or other goods or services. It would also include cooperatives that market goods made by members or goods made by the cooperative. The Department could provide advice for such cooperatives including conducting economic surveys and analysis of proposed cooperative activities. It would also conduct surveys of cooperatives and issue reports about them as well as promote rural cooperative principles and practices. The bill authorizes such sums as might be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act. I urge that the Congress consider and pass this bill in the coming year.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill requiring studies of the health effects of nuclear weapons testing. This would build upon the study by the National Cancer Institute that was released October 1 of this year. On October 1, following some major news coverage, the NCI testified before the Senate Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on their efforts to connect nuclear weapons testing with thyroid cancer. The NCI testimony and the report released that day were startling. Atomic bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950's exposed millions of Americans--particularly children--to large amounts of radioactive iodine-131. The levels of radioactive iodine exposure is far worse than previously reported by the Government. Hot spots where the iodine-131 fallout was greatest includes many counties far away from Nevada, including New York, Massachusetts, and Iowa. Hot spots were identified as receiving as high as 5-16 rads of exposure of iodine-131, with children being exposed to a risk up to 10 times higher. Iodine-131, which accumulates in the thyroid gland, has been linked to thyroid cancer. To give some understanding of the enormity of the U.S. atomic tests in Nevada, 116 million curies of iodine-131 were released in the United States above ground tests. This compares to 7.3 million from Chernobyl disaster the former Soviet Union. The NCI report clearly shows that the U.S. atomic tests exposed a lot of people to risks now considered unacceptable. The topic hits very close to home for me. During the 1950's, I was living in the small town of Cumming located in south-central Iowa. Along with many Iowans, I lived in the hot spots detailed by the NCI study. Further, like many of my neighbors, I drank milk from the cows kept on our farm. This increased the risk faced by myself and my family because radioactive iodine accumulates in milk. The NCI report has attracted a lot of attention. Much of this stems from the history of nuclear weapons testing. As we all know, the U.S. Government was fairly cavalier with its nuclear weapons program during the early days of the cold war. Historians can argue about the reasons, but most people recognize the terrible toll suffered by the American public because of our nuclear weapons program. Only recently has the extent of exposure to radiation and other hazards to the ``down winders'' living near nuclear weapons sites such as the Nevada test site, Hanford in Washington State, and the Marshall Islanders in the South Pacific. So it is no surprise that a report detailing exposure to millions of Americans would attract attention. However, we need to continue the research into the health impact of nuclear weapons testing. That is why I am introducing this bill to require further study by the Department of Health and Human Services. The HHS study will build upon the NCI study. There is strong evidence that exposure to other radioactive isotopes that were spread by nuclear weapons tests such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and barium 140 could lead to bone cancer, leukemia, higher infant mortality, and a host of other illnesses. This needs to be examined. So do the nuclear weapons tests that took place not only at the Nevada test site, but at other places as well. For example, the NCI report did not examine the nuclear weapons testing conducted by the United States in Mississippi, Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado, or the South Pacific. The studies should research not only the United States nuclear weapons program, but also tests by foreign nations including the Soviet Union and its successor states, France, China, India, and Great Britain. I also believe that such studies should be conducted in an open manner. For example, this bill will require that the studies fall under the review authority of the Advisory Committee on Energy Related Studies and other entities established by the Federal Government to ensure public accountability over health related studies pertaining to nuclear weapon research, production, and testing. The bill also requires that HHS report to Congress within 90 days of passage as to its plan for completing the studies, as well as report to Congress each year on its progress. This is a simple bill that seeks some understanding of the health consequences of our nuclear weapons testing program. I would ask my fellow colleagues to review and support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Rural Cooperative Act, a measure proposed by the administration. Under current law, the Rural Business--Cooperative Services within the Rural Development Administration provides a wide variety of services for farm cooperatives. They conduct economic analysis, provide advice on how to form and best operate cooperatives and a wide variety of other services for farm cooperatives, including how to deal with the complex laws under which cooperatives operate. Farm cooperatives are very important in rural America. They allow farmers to come together to purchase goods, to sell their products, and to process their agricultural commodities under farmer ownership. Some cooperatives only perform one of those functions. Some do two or three of them. In all cases, they allow farmers to come together and more effectively bargain for a fair price. Funding for cooperative services within the Department of Agriculture has been under considerable constraint in recent years and it is now difficult for the Department to provide the full range of services allowed by law to farm cooperatives. I do not want to see those services reduced. But, I do agree with the administration, that cooperative services should also be available to those in rural areas, in addition to farmers who want to form cooperatives. Therefore, I am introducing the administration-proposed bill to broaden the responsibilities of the Department in this area. I do so, requesting that the administration increase its request for funding to carry out these additional responsibilities and will be urging that the Appropriations Committee appropriately increase funding in this area. The bill provides that rural residents who are considering forming a cooperative for one of a number of purposes or who have formed a cooperative may receive a variety of kinds of assistance from USDA. The types of cooperatives that would benefit would include those purchasing consumer goods, business products or services, health care, utilities, communications, child and day care, housing, credit, insurance, or other goods or services. It would also include cooperatives that market goods made by members or goods made by the cooperative. The Department could provide advice for such cooperatives including conducting economic surveys and analysis of proposed cooperative activities. It would also conduct surveys of cooperatives and issue reports about them as well as promote rural cooperative principles and practices. The bill authorizes such sums as might be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act. I urge that the Congress consider and pass this bill in the coming year.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I want to speak a little about the fast-track bill that is before us and which is scheduled to be voted on in the House tonight. I doing so, I reread the President's speech on September 10 that he gave on fast track. He gave it at the White House, I believe in the East Room. I found some interesting remarks in the President's speech. He talked about change. He said, ``As we have done throughout our history, we have taken our Nation and led the world to the edge of a new era and a new economy.'' He is absolutely right. He talked about the economy, and how we are the largest producer of automobiles, agricultural exports, semiconductors, steel, and other items. Then, closer to the end of the speech, the President said, ``As we continue to expand our economy here at home by expanding our leadership in the global economy, I believe that we have an obligation to support and encourage core labor standards and environmental protections abroad.'' He further said in his speech--this is the President's speech on September 10--``Our goal must be to persuade other countries to build on the prosperity that comes with trade and lift their standards up. As we move forward, we must press countries to provide the labor standards to which all workers are entitled,'' et cetera. The President said in his speech that we are part of a new world economy. I would say, yes, Mr. President, we are also part of a new world community--a new world community the likes of which we have never seen because of the rapid dissemination of information, the globalization of communication, the instantaneous transmission of images and voice, transmittal of information around the globe. People living in the remotest villages of Africa, China, or Asia now know what is happening in other parts of the world. No longer is it kept from them. Increasingly the people on this planet are going to demand their human rights, their fundamental basic human rights, their individual freedoms. That is what Tiananmen Square was all about. Yes, Mr. President, you were right. You were right, Mr. President, to say to President Jiang of China that China was on the wrong side of history at Tiananmen Square. You were right, Mr. President. But, Mr. President, to the extent that we have a trade bill before us that limits your authority to negotiate under fast track regarding exploitative child labor, that weakens the provisions dealing with child labor, then you, Mr. President, and this country are on the wrong side of history. Those may sound like strong words, but as I have read the President's speech, and as I read the fast-track bill before us, one can only come to one conclusion. This legislation takes us in the wrong direction. It severely limits the ability of the President and our trade negotiators to address the issue of exploitative child labor in trade negotiations. That is right. This bill limits the President's authority. The 1988 bill didn't. I will explain this. In this bill, child labor is included in a category of issues under the heading ``Regulatory Negotiations.'' Under this heading in the bill, negotiations under fast track on child labor may only cover--I will read it--``the lowering of, or derogation from, existing * * * standards.'' That is all. The language does not allow negotiations aimed at getting a country to agree to raise its child labor standards, no matter how weak or nonexistent they may be. Furthermore, the negotiations may only address cases where the other country's lowering of, or derogation from, its child labor standards is--and I will read it directly from the bill--``for the purpose of attracting investment or inhibiting United States exports.'' I want to make sure my colleagues understand that. First of all, the President may only negotiate regarding the lowering of, or derogation from, existing labor standards. He can't negotiate on strengthening them. And he may only negotiate regarding the situation where the lowering of, or derogation from, standards is done for the purpose of attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports. What about the case where a country lowers or fails to enforce its child labor standards for the purpose of producing goods at lower cost so it can ship them to the United States? That situation is not mentioned in this language, so the President does not have authority to negotiate on that basis according to the terms of the bill. Allowing the use of exploitative child labor to hold the price of goods down is unfair competition, plain and simple, but a country could do that. Exploitative child labor in foreign countries unfairly puts competing firms and workers at a disadvantage in the United States and in other countries that do not allow it. Yet, the language in this bill does not indicate that President would have the authority to address that kind of unfair competition against U.S. companies and workers in negotiations and agreements under fast track. As long as the other country is not lowering or derogating from its standards for the purpose of attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports, our negotiators cannot negotiate to end this unfair competition. The bottom line is that this bill limits the President's authority to seek agreements that would curtail exploitative child labor. It is important to clarify this point. I think people will say ``Harkin, what are you talking about? How could it limit the President's authority?'' Well, let us examine that question. Under this bill, the President actually has less authority to negotiate regarding child labor, and submit an agreement to Congress under fast-track procedures, than he had in the most recent fast-track legislation, which was contained in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988--the last bill laying out fast-track procedures that we voted on and which this Senator voted for. That is right. Let me be very clear. The bill before us provides less authority to negotiate on child labor than the bill that we passed in 1988. And that bill has done precious little in terms of exploitative child labor. Now, let me explain specifically. The 1988 fast-track law was set up in the same way as the bill before us. It had a listing of principal trade negotiating objectives. One of those listed objectives pertained to worker rights, and I will quote from the 1988 law: The principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding worker rights are (A) to promote respect for worker rights. As used in the 1988 fast-track law, the term ``worker rights" certainly includes the right of children not to be subjected to exploitative labor. That is the plain meaning of the language, and I have confirmed that interpretation with the Congressional Research Service. So the 1988 fast-track bill clearly included a negotiating objective encompassing child labor and affirming the President's broad authority to negotiate regarding child labor. Well, now someone, I am sure, will point out that the bill before us specifically mentions child labor. Yes, it does. The 1988 bill did not, although as I noted child labor was encompassed in the 1988 bill under the heading of worker rights. But the 1988 bill and this bill are vastly different from one another in the way they are structured and how they deal with child labor. The 1988 bill's negotiating objectives were written in broad terms to urge the President to pursue worker rights issues which included child labor. The 1988 language was not really written as a limitation on the President's authority, but rather as an affirmation of the President's expansive authority to negotiate on these issues and an encouragement to seek agreements on these issues with other countries. By contrast, this bill before us is narrowly drawn to circumscribe and limit the President's negotiating authority regarding exploitative child labor. Unlike the 1988 bill, this bill before us is not written to set objectives and encourage the President to reach them, and to do even better if possible, in reaching sound agreements on exploitative child labor. Understand this. This bill before us says he may negotiate under fast track only agreements designed to prevent other countries from lowering or derogating from existing child labor standards--no matter how low they may be. He may not negotiate under fast track an agreement in which a country would commit to raise its child labor standards if they are too low or if they do not exist. And further, a fast-track agreement may prevent a country from lowering or derogating from its child labor standards only in cases where it does so for the limited purposes of attracting investment or inhibiting U.S. exports. This bill is very limited on the President's authority to negotiate regarding exploitative child labor. Again, he can only negotiate on agreements designed to prevent other countries from lowering their standards, and then he can only do that if that country is lowering its standards for the limited purpose of attracting U.S. investment or limiting U.S. exports. Mr. President, you wonder who wrote this. Now, I have in good faith talked a lot to the people around the President about exploitative child labor. I have talked to his Trade Representative in good faith about this issue. And you know, initially they said we are going to put child labor in there. Well, they did, but what they didn't say is they put it in in a way that actually limits the President's authority from what he had in the 1988 bill. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?