Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield you time for Senator Specter. How much time does the Senator want?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from North Carolina was wishing to speak.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I, too, appreciate the leadership of my colleague from New Jersey on this issue, and concur with the Chairman that the NIH should give appropriate consideration to proposals from the International Center for Public Health.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today Senator Mack and I, joined by a strong bipartisan group of our colleagues, are introducing legislation that would prevent tobacco companies from claiming the settlement or judgement payments as a tax-deductible expense, and use the resulting savings to substantially expand our Nation's investment in the search for medical breakthroughs. It is important to note that this common sense proposal is the first major tobacco legislation this year to be introduced with strong bipartisan support. We have 16 cosponsors--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans--and I believe we'll have many more as more of our colleagues have the time to review this bill. Senator Mack and I are also very pleased to have the support of over 170 organizations from across the Nation signed up in support of this plan. During the negotiations that led to the proposed national tobacco settlement, lawyers for the big tobacco companies insisted on a provision stating that ``all payments pursuant to this agreement shall be deemed ordinary and necessary business expenses.'' This means that all payments under this proposal, an estimated $368.5 billion over 25 years, would be tax deductible. Thus the industry could write off about 35 percent of the entire settlement payment of $368.5 billion, as well as any future payments or fines. So, if this were allowed to happen, the American people--not Big Tobacco--would be forced to pay approximately $130 billion of the tobacco settlement. But the American people have paid enough. They've paid by having their kids deliberately targeted in slick advertising campaigns. They've paid by having the industry lie to them about the health effects of tobacco. And they've paid with disease and death. Tobacco products kill more than 400,000 Americans every year--that's more deaths than from AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs, and fires combined. Last year, close to 5,000 Iowans died from smoking related illnesses. Mr. President, our bipartisan bill would close this outrageous loophole in the proposed national tobacco settlement, and open a new source of funding for investing in health research. And that's what we really need. The proposed settlement provides funding for smoking cessation programs, anti-smoking education programs, and FDA enforcement--but only a tiny amount is set aside for vital scientific research on lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. The Senate is already on record, in a vote of 98-0, to double the budget of NIH within 5 years. If we create a trust fund for medical research as I have been calling for since 1993 and deposit in it the savings from the elimination of this special interest loophole, we could take a major step to meet the Senate's objective and make even more headway in curing killer diseases. A fund for health research would provide additional resources for our search for medical breakthroughs over and above those provided to NIH in the annual appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures and more cost effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that strike Americans. In 1993 and 1994 I argued that any health care reform plan should include additional funding for health research. Health care reform was taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's commitment to health research has only grown. While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war against disease and disability continues. Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health costs in the long run. If we can find cures for lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease, the savings would be enormous. Mr. President, I do everything I can to increase funding for NIH through the appropriations process. But, given the current budget situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we can do is limited. Without action, our investment in medical research through the NIH is likely to decline in real terms. The NIH is able to fund only about 25 percent of competing research projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is compared to rates of 30 percent or more just over a decade ago. Science and cutting edge medical research are being put on hold. We may be giving up possible cures for diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, and countless other diseases. Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical research less and less attractive to young people. I am tremendously heartened by the significant bipartisan coalition of 16 Senators that has formed in support of our bill. Our colleagues who have joined with us on this legislation understand that health research is an investment in our future--an investment in our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, this legislation is common sense, bipartisan--and it's the right thing to do. Senator Mack and I join in asking our colleagues for their willingness to carefully review our proposal. Certainly any tobacco legislation that this Congress adopts next year should contribute significantly to our Nation's commitment in the search for medical breakthroughs.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this week marks the end of Iowa native Paul Johnson's remarkable 4-year tenure as Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service at the Department of Agriculture. As a long-time farmer and conservationist, Paul brought to NRCS a bold vision of private lands as a national resource to be managed in harmony with the environment. During the past 4 years, Paul guided his agency through a major reorganization, from the Soil Conservation Service to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and has shaped the agency's programs and policies to reflect this new emphasis on the conservation of all natural resources. Paul's leadership has inspired a new commitment to conservation both within USDA and across the country. Paul's influence was obvious in the development of the landmark conservation title of the 1996 Farm Bill, which included among many important provisions the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. The creation and implementation of these programs under Paul's direction are hallmarks of the energy, creativity, and commitment that he brought to NRCS, and of the legacy he leaves behind. The agency's eloquent publication, ``A Geography of Hope,'' is a visionary statement of the NRCS mission and testimony to Paul's farm roots and passion for the land. For 23 years on his farm in Decorah, IA, Paul has raised corn, hay, and Christmas trees, and had a dairy herd and sheep. In our home State Paul is highly regarded as an architect of environmental legislation. As a representative in the Iowa General Assembly from 1984 to 1990, he authored the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act, the Iowa Resource Enhancement and Protection Program, the Iowa Energy Efficiency Act and the Iowa Integrated Farm Management Program. For his leadership in the State he was named conservation legislator of the year by several organizations in Iowa and was named to the Iowa Conservation Hall of Fame by the Wildlife Society. Paul holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in forestry from the University of Michigan, where he also pursued doctoral studies in forestry. He taught forestry in Ghana for two years, and has been visiting professor of environmental policy at Luther College. Paul worked for the USDA Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest and also has studied and consulted on forestry, agriculture, environment, and energy issues in Honduras, Costa Rica, Sweden, and the former Soviet Union. Paul served on the Board of Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences from 1988 to 1994, where he was involved in major studies in agriculture, forestry, and conservation. He also has served as an assistant commissioner for his local soil conservation district. Paul brings both a global perspective and a local sensibility to conservation. While I am sorry to see him leave NRCS, I look forward to his return to Iowa, where he will continue to enrich our State. I would like to extend congratulations on a job well done, and wish Paul and his wife Pat the best on their return home.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today Senator Mack and I, joined by a strong bipartisan group of our colleagues, are introducing legislation that would prevent tobacco companies from claiming the settlement or judgement payments as a tax-deductible expense, and use the resulting savings to substantially expand our Nation's investment in the search for medical breakthroughs. It is important to note that this common sense proposal is the first major tobacco legislation this year to be introduced with strong bipartisan support. We have 16 cosponsors--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans--and I believe we'll have many more as more of our colleagues have the time to review this bill. Senator Mack and I are also very pleased to have the support of over 170 organizations from across the Nation signed up in support of this plan. During the negotiations that led to the proposed national tobacco settlement, lawyers for the big tobacco companies insisted on a provision stating that ``all payments pursuant to this agreement shall be deemed ordinary and necessary business expenses.'' This means that all payments under this proposal, an estimated $368.5 billion over 25 years, would be tax deductible. Thus the industry could write off about 35 percent of the entire settlement payment of $368.5 billion, as well as any future payments or fines. So, if this were allowed to happen, the American people--not Big Tobacco--would be forced to pay approximately $130 billion of the tobacco settlement. But the American people have paid enough. They've paid by having their kids deliberately targeted in slick advertising campaigns. They've paid by having the industry lie to them about the health effects of tobacco. And they've paid with disease and death. Tobacco products kill more than 400,000 Americans every year--that's more deaths than from AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs, and fires combined. Last year, close to 5,000 Iowans died from smoking related illnesses. Mr. President, our bipartisan bill would close this outrageous loophole in the proposed national tobacco settlement, and open a new source of funding for investing in health research. And that's what we really need. The proposed settlement provides funding for smoking cessation programs, anti-smoking education programs, and FDA enforcement--but only a tiny amount is set aside for vital scientific research on lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. The Senate is already on record, in a vote of 98-0, to double the budget of NIH within 5 years. If we create a trust fund for medical research as I have been calling for since 1993 and deposit in it the savings from the elimination of this special interest loophole, we could take a major step to meet the Senate's objective and make even more headway in curing killer diseases. A fund for health research would provide additional resources for our search for medical breakthroughs over and above those provided to NIH in the annual appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures and more cost effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that strike Americans. In 1993 and 1994 I argued that any health care reform plan should include additional funding for health research. Health care reform was taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's commitment to health research has only grown. While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war against disease and disability continues. Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health costs in the long run. If we can find cures for lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease, the savings would be enormous. Mr. President, I do everything I can to increase funding for NIH through the appropriations process. But, given the current budget situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we can do is limited. Without action, our investment in medical research through the NIH is likely to decline in real terms. The NIH is able to fund only about 25 percent of competing research projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is compared to rates of 30 percent or more just over a decade ago. Science and cutting edge medical research are being put on hold. We may be giving up possible cures for diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, and countless other diseases. Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical research less and less attractive to young people. I am tremendously heartened by the significant bipartisan coalition of 16 Senators that has formed in support of our bill. Our colleagues who have joined with us on this legislation understand that health research is an investment in our future--an investment in our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, this legislation is common sense, bipartisan--and it's the right thing to do. Senator Mack and I join in asking our colleagues for their willingness to carefully review our proposal. Certainly any tobacco legislation that this Congress adopts next year should contribute significantly to our Nation's commitment in the search for medical breakthroughs.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier this week an expert scientific panel at the National Institutes of Health strongly endorsed acupuncture as an effective treatment for certain conditions. This is the first time that the NIH has endorsed a major alternative therapy. It is truly a breakthrough, and is just the type of advance that I envisioned when I worked to establish the Office of Alternative Medicine at the NIH. The consensus conference held by NIH involved top scientists from around the Nation, including those with expertise in acupuncture and experts in research evaluation and design. These scientists, led by Dr. David Ramsey, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, objectively evaluated the evidence of acupuncture's efficacy and came to a consensus that this therapy is safe and provides significant help for a number of health problems. They found that acupuncture is an effective treatment for postoperative dental pain, postoperative and chemotherapy-induced nausea, nausea during pregnancy, and other conditions. They also identified a number of other conditions, including asthma, substance addiction, stroke rehabilitation, headache, general muscle pain, low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, for which acupuncture demonstrates effectiveness but with a less degree of certainty. I was dismayed to read that despite this consensus agreement after rigorous evaluation of the scientific evidence, there is still a fringe element in the medical community that refuses to acknowledge the facts. These critics seem only to be interested in bad mouthing anything out of what they consider to be the medical mainstream. While we all benefit from a healthy dose of skepticism in the scientific process, I hope in the future, this small group of critics take off their blinders long enough to objectively look at the scientific evidence and give credit where credit is due. Mr. President, as I have said before, millions of Americans--more and more each day--are using alternative medical therapies. In 1993, the FDA reported that Americans were spending $500 million a year for between 9 and 12 million acupuncture treatment visits. Unfortunately, research has not kept pace. The NIH has failed to break through biases that exist and devote the attention to this area that is needed. As a result, American consumers have been denied information about the effectiveness of the therapies they are using or thinking of using. I am pleased to report that the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 Health and Human Services appropriations bill has agreed to provide more than a 50-percent increase to the Office of Alternative Medicine to expand efforts like this week's consensus conference on acupuncture to other work and to investigate and validate complementary and alternative therapies. Our report also guarantees that this increase will be spent on grants and contracts that directly respond to requests for proposals and program announcements issued by the Office of Alternative Medicine. Mr. President, this week's endorsement of acupuncture by NIH is a positive step forward for the American public and for the medical research in our Nation. I hope that it will lead not only to greater acceptance of, and access to, cost effective acupuncture services, but to increased willingness on the part of NIH and the medical community to commit to the objective evaluation of a range of promising complementary and alternative medical therapies. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the findings of this historic NIH consensus panel be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about a very troubling shortcoming in the legislation to grant the President fast-track authority, and that is its failure to adequately address the issue of abusive and exploitative child labor. First, let me discuss what I mean by exploitative child labor. It is a term well known in international relations. We are not talking about children who work part time after school or on weekends. There is nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth. I bet the occupant of the Chair worked in his youth. There is nothing wrong with young people working. That is not the issue. Exploitative child labor involves children under the age of 15, forced to work, many times in hazardous conditions, many under slave- like conditions, who sweat long hours for little or no pay. They are denied an education or the opportunity to grow and develop. It is the kind of work that endangers a child's physical and emotional well-being and growth. The International Labor Organization estimates that there are some 250 million children worldwide engaged in this sort of economic activity. These are the kind of kids we are talking about. We are talking about this young Mexican girl, harvesting vegetables in the fields of Hidalgo State. They are out there working long hours, all day long. They are not in school. You know, my farmers in Iowa can compete with anybody around the world. That is why we have always believed in free trade. But we believe in a level playing field. My farmers cannot compete with this slave. That is what she is. You can dress it up in all kinds of fancy words and cover it up, but that girl out in that field is working under slave-like conditions because she has no other choice. And isn't that the definition of slavery? She is not alone. It is in Pakistan and India, Bolivia, Southeast Asia, all around the world--children working under these kinds of conditions. I am not talking about after school. I am talking about kids who are denied an education, forced to work in fields and factories under hazardous conditions for little or no pay. I have been working on this issue for a long time. In 1992 I introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, to try to end abusive and exploitative child labor. It would have banned the importation of all goods into the United States made by abusive and exploitative child labor. Some have said this is revolutionary, but I don't believe so. I believe it is written in the most conservative of all ideas that this country stands for; that international trade cannot ignore international values. Would the President of the United States ever send a bill to Congress dealing with free trade or opening up trade with a country that employed slave labor? Of course not; he would be laughed off the floor. But what about this young girl? What about the millions more like her around the world? They are as good as slaves because they don't have any other choice and they are forced to do this under the guise of free trade. We, as a nation, cannot ignore, this. In 1993, this Senate put itself on record in opposition to the exploitation of children by passing a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I submitted. In 1994, as chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, I requested the Department of Labor to begin a series of reports on child labor. Those reports, now three in number, represent the most thorough documentation ever assembled by the U.S. Government on this issue. They published three reports; the fourth will be completed shortly. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act, which would give consumers the power to decide through a voluntary labeling system whether they want to buy an article made by child labor or not. Every time you buy a shirt, it says on the shirt where it was made. It tells you how much cotton, how much polyester and how much nylon, et cetera, is in that shirt. It has a price tag on it and tells you how much it cost to buy. But it won't tell you what it may have cost a child to make that shirt or that pair of shoes or that glassware or that brass object or that soccer ball or any number of items, including the vegetables that this girl is harvesting in Mexico. So we said, let's have a voluntary labeling system, and if a company wanted to import items into the United States, they could affix a label saying it was child labor free. In exchange for that label, they would have to agree to allow surprise inspections of their plants to ensure that no children were ever employed there. To me, this puts the power in the hands of consumers. It gives us the information that we need to know. I still think this is the direction in which we ought to go, a labeling system, and we have experience in that. Right now ``RUGMARK'' is being affixed to labels on rugs coming out of India and Nepal that verifies that rug was not made with child labor, and it is working. It is working well, because now the people authorized to use the ``RUGMARK'' label have to open up their plants for people to come in and make sure no children are employed there, and they get the label ``RUGMARK,'' which certifies it was not made with child labor. The ``RUGMARK'' program also provides funds to build schools and provides teachers to educate these children so that they are not displaced. So if I, as a consumer, want to buy a nice hand- knotted rug, if I see that ``RUGMARK'' label, I know it was not made by child labor. More and more importers are importing ``RUGMARK'' rugs into this country. It has worked well in Europe, and now it is in the United States. In October of this year, Congress passed into law another provision that I had worked on with Congressman Sanders in the House. It is regarding section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which makes it clear that goods made with forced or indentured labor are to be barred from entry into the United States. Section 307 of the tariff law of 1930 banned articles made by prison labor and forced labor from coming into this country. That has been on the books since 1930. What Congress passed was a clarification of that law or an explanation of that law to say that it also covers goods made by forced or indentured child labor. Congress passed it as part of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. So you might say, Well, if you have done that, then there is nothing else to do. But that is only an appropriations bill, and it is only good for 1 year. We are now working with Customs officials to try to decide how they find those articles made by exploitative child labor. Again, it is only good for 1 year. Will we be able to put this into permanent law next year? I don't know. And that still does not address the issue of children who don't make goods bound for the U.S. market. Right now, Mr. President, it is estimated somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.5 million kids around the world are involved in this kind of exploitative child labor, making goods that go into foreign trade that come into this country; 12.5 million kids, a large number being exploited for the economic gain of others. Make no mistake about it, their economic gain is an economic loss for this child and their country and for the United States. Every child lost to the workplace in this manner is a child who will not learn a valuable skill to help their country develop economically or becoming a more active participant in the global markets. We have done much to address the issue of exploitative child labor, but I am sorry to say that one of the most important measures that we will be asked to vote on this year or perhaps next year, depending on when it comes here for a vote--this bill, S. 1269, the so-called fast- track bill--does not recognize the depths of the problem of exploitative child labor and does little to help protect them from exploitation. This bill protects songs. It protects computer chips. Let me read. Intellectual property. This bill, under part B, says, ``the principal trade negotiating objectives.'' There are 15. Principal trade negotiating objectives. The first is reduction of barriers to trade in goods. The second is trade in services. The third is foreign investment. Fourth is intellectual property, and it says: The principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding intellectual property are-- And it has a bunch of things here. It says: . . . to recognize and adequately protect intellectual property, including copyrights, patents, trademarks, semiconductor chip layout designs. . .

Mr. HARKIN. Three more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes to finish up.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know people are here to speak. I just want to finish. We are protecting semiconductor chip computer design layouts. If we can protect a song, we can protect a child. That is my bottom line on this. What do they do with child labor? Oh, it is back here on page 18, ``It's the policy of the United States to reinforce trade agreements process by seeking to establish in the International Labor Organization''--the ILO--``a mechanism for the examination of, reporting on''--et cetera, and includes exploitative child labor. It doesn't mean a thing. I know all about the ILO. It is a great organization. It has absolutely zero enforcement powers. If we can protect a song, why can't we protect a child? Why don't we elevate exploitative child labor to the same status as intellectual property rights? Let's make it a separate principal trade negotiating objective of this Government that when we negotiate a trade agreement with a country, yes, we will negotiate on trade in services and on foreign investment and intellectual property. But let's also put child labor right up there as one of the principal negotiating objectives of our Government. I have an amendment drafted to that extent. It mirrors exactly what is done in intellectual property. We make this young girl the equivalent of a song or a computer chip layout design. Anything less than that means that this fast-track legislation ought to be consigned to the trash heap of history. If we are not willing to take that kind of a step to announce it loudly and forcefully to the White House and to instruct the people who are involved in negotiating our trade agreements, then this body has no reason at all to pass fast-track legislation. We must elevate the issue of exploitative child labor to that level. Anything less will not do. I yield the floor and thank my friend from Missouri for giving me the opportunity to finish my statement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate has passed one of the most important agriculture bills it will consider this session. The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1997 not only represents a strong statement by the Senate on the importance of research to the future of American agriculture but also a substantive improvement in USDA's research efforts. I am pleased that both sides of the aisle have come together to invest in the future of agriculture and rural communities in this country. I am especially pleased with the cooperation I have enjoyed with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, and his staff throughout the development of this important legislation. This bill ensures that our farmers and ranchers have the world's best science and technology to produce food and fiber, protect the environment upon which agriculture depends, and create rural economic opportunities. We are devoting over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years to advance the science and technology underlying our agricultural system. I am also pleased that we were able to find the resources to improve the nutrition of our Nation's poorest children. We have also extended the fund for rural America through 2002 and reaffirmed and enlarged our commitment to the pressing development needs of our rural communities. The fund was a key component of the 1996 Farm bill, created to provide funds to help farmers and rural communities to transition into the new farm policy environment. I am pleased we have allocated an additional $300 million to these purposes so the fund will continue to emphasize creative research and rural development efforts. This bill contains substantial new initiatives for research and development of new uses for agricultural commodities. I believe that the most important way to increase farm income is to find new nonfood markets for agricultural commodities. New uses activities at the USDA will be conducted in a coordinated manner to garner the maximum benefit from the various research programs. We have authorized the USDA to use its resources to conduct research on lowering the cost of production of alternative agricultural products in cooperation with startup companies, including AARCC companies. Finally, AARCC is a priority for the new research initiative included in this bill. This bill also contains significant reforms in the current research programs. We have increased the accountability of the research and extension formula funds. We require the Secretary to consult with producers, industry and consumers in setting research priorities. We require external scientific peer-review of ARS research. Finally, we have taken the first steps in encouraging the inter-State cooperation on research and extension problems. States are required to dedicate a portion of research and extension funds to problems of national or multi-State significance. In the process I believe we are making our research system more responsive to critical issues and we hopefully will eliminate unnecessary duplication of efforts. Mr. President, we have increased the funding, competitiveness, accountability and credibility of U.S. agricultural research. We have let the world know that we are serious about equipping American agriculture for future food production changes. We also take steps to assure the taxpayer that research dollars are expended in the most efficient manner. We have done all this in a strong bipartisan manner. I think we can all take pride in the fact that today we have made a significant investment in a better future for not only the U.S. farmer and rancher but also in a better future for an increasingly crowded and hungry world.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am introducing the Animal Agriculture Reform Act, a bill that for the first time sets tough environmental standards governing how large livestock and poultry operations handle their animal waste. Animal waste pollution is a national problem that demands a national solution. Nationwide, 200 times more animal manure is produced than human waste--five tons for every person in the United States--making large livestock operations the waste equivalent of a town or city. For example, 1,600 dairies in the Central Valley of California produce more waste than a city of 21 million people. And right here outside of Washington, DC, the annual production of 600 million chickens on the Delmarva Peninsula leaves as much nitrogen as a city of almost 500,000 people. The shrinking number of farms producing an ever greater share of animals means that too much manure is produced in some areas of the country to be put on land without causing water pollution. Nitrogen and phosphorous in animal manure are valuable crop nutrients--but in excessive levels in water they are serious pollutants. High levels of nitrogen and phosphorous cause the excessive algae growth of algae, whose bacterial decomposition uses up oxygen in the water and kills fish. Animal waste also carries parasites, bacteria and viruses--and can pollute drinking water with nitrates, potentially fatal to infants. While towns must have sewage treatment plants, excess waste from large-scale animal feeding operations is simply stored indefinitely or over-applied on land. That means water pollution from over-application, and the ongoing risk of pollution and even massive spills from stored waste. In 1995 in North Carolina 35 million gallons of animal waste were spilled, killing 10 million fish. And last year more than 40 animal waste spills were recorded in Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, up from 20 in 1992. In 1997, the toxic microbe Pfiesteria, whose increased presence is linked to excessive nutrients in the water, killed approximately 30,000 fish in the Chesapeake Bay and approximately 450,000 fish in North Carolina. Major attacks by harmful microbes in U.S. coastal and estuarial waters between 1972 and 1995 have doubled--and excessive nutrients are the suspected catalyst. In the Gulf of Mexico, farm runoff including animal waste is linked to the formation of a so-called ``dead zone'' of hypoxia (low oxygen)-- up to 7,000 square miles of water that cannot support most aquatic life. The Environmental Protection Agency's regulations in this area have not been revised since they were written in the 1970s, and they do not go nearly far enough to address current animal waste problems. Animal waste management practices must include limiting the application of both phosphorous and nitrogen to amounts that can be used by crops. In addition, environmentally sound standards are needed for the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of excess animal waste. Under my bill, large animal feeding operations must submit an individual animal waste management plan to USDA designed to minimize the risk of surface and ground water pollution. My bill would require that USDA work with farmers in developing plans to address potential problems before they happen. USDA will do this by establishing guidelines and providing technical assistance and information to develop farm-specific plans to be approved on an individual basis. I am using the term animal waste, but it is important that we recognize that manure is a valuable resource for farmers who need nutrients for their crops. Promoting wise use of manure for crop nutrients is the guiding principle of my bill. For a plan to be approved, an operator must agree to apply animal waste to land only in amounts meeting crop nutrient requirements. Furthermore, liquid waste that cannot be safely used for nutrients or another environmentally sound use must be treated in accordance with waste water treatment standards. My bill also applies sound technical standards to the construction of all new earthen manure lagoons to prevent leaks and spillage of animal waste. Existing earthen manure lagoons are given a reasonable phase-in period to meet appropriate standards. In addition, my bill puts the burden of complying with these requirements on the animal owners. The bill would prevent animal owners from using contracts or similar arrangements to avoid responsibility for animal waste management. The bill covers operations with an approximate one-time animal capacity above 1,330 hogs; 57,000 chickens; 270 dairy cattle; or 530 slaughter cattle. Each animal owner with at least that many animals must submit a waste management plan to USDA for approval, whether or not the animals are kept in one place. Animal feeding operations under those sizes will qualify under USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program for additional technical and cost-share assistance to implement animal waste management plans. I want to be clear that my bill does not interfere with the role of EPA and the States in monitoring pollution, or is it a substitute for EPA strengthening its current regulations. I see it as an essential part of a cooperative approach to the problem by both EPA and USDA--and I look forward to EPA's proposals in this area. I also look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production, which is working on these issues in great detail. We must take strong action now to halt the pollution of our water from animal waste and other farm runoff. Other issues that are outside the scope of this bill also need to be addressed, including management of municipal and industrial wastewater and more careful application of commercial fertilizers. My proposal is one part of a national solution to our water quality concerns.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am introducing the Animal Agriculture Reform Act, a bill that for the first time sets tough environmental standards governing how large livestock and poultry operations handle their animal waste. Animal waste pollution is a national problem that demands a national solution. Nationwide, 200 times more animal manure is produced than human waste--five tons for every person in the United States--making large livestock operations the waste equivalent of a town or city. For example, 1,600 dairies in the Central Valley of California produce more waste than a city of 21 million people. And right here outside of Washington, DC, the annual production of 600 million chickens on the Delmarva Peninsula leaves as much nitrogen as a city of almost 500,000 people. The shrinking number of farms producing an ever greater share of animals means that too much manure is produced in some areas of the country to be put on land without causing water pollution. Nitrogen and phosphorous in animal manure are valuable crop nutrients--but in excessive levels in water they are serious pollutants. High levels of nitrogen and phosphorous cause the excessive algae growth of algae, whose bacterial decomposition uses up oxygen in the water and kills fish. Animal waste also carries parasites, bacteria and viruses--and can pollute drinking water with nitrates, potentially fatal to infants. While towns must have sewage treatment plants, excess waste from large-scale animal feeding operations is simply stored indefinitely or over-applied on land. That means water pollution from over-application, and the ongoing risk of pollution and even massive spills from stored waste. In 1995 in North Carolina 35 million gallons of animal waste were spilled, killing 10 million fish. And last year more than 40 animal waste spills were recorded in Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, up from 20 in 1992. In 1997, the toxic microbe Pfiesteria, whose increased presence is linked to excessive nutrients in the water, killed approximately 30,000 fish in the Chesapeake Bay and approximately 450,000 fish in North Carolina. Major attacks by harmful microbes in U.S. coastal and estuarial waters between 1972 and 1995 have doubled--and excessive nutrients are the suspected catalyst. In the Gulf of Mexico, farm runoff including animal waste is linked to the formation of a so-called ``dead zone'' of hypoxia (low oxygen)-- up to 7,000 square miles of water that cannot support most aquatic life. The Environmental Protection Agency's regulations in this area have not been revised since they were written in the 1970s, and they do not go nearly far enough to address current animal waste problems. Animal waste management practices must include limiting the application of both phosphorous and nitrogen to amounts that can be used by crops. In addition, environmentally sound standards are needed for the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of excess animal waste. Under my bill, large animal feeding operations must submit an individual animal waste management plan to USDA designed to minimize the risk of surface and ground water pollution. My bill would require that USDA work with farmers in developing plans to address potential problems before they happen. USDA will do this by establishing guidelines and providing technical assistance and information to develop farm-specific plans to be approved on an individual basis. I am using the term animal waste, but it is important that we recognize that manure is a valuable resource for farmers who need nutrients for their crops. Promoting wise use of manure for crop nutrients is the guiding principle of my bill. For a plan to be approved, an operator must agree to apply animal waste to land only in amounts meeting crop nutrient requirements. Furthermore, liquid waste that cannot be safely used for nutrients or another environmentally sound use must be treated in accordance with waste water treatment standards. My bill also applies sound technical standards to the construction of all new earthen manure lagoons to prevent leaks and spillage of animal waste. Existing earthen manure lagoons are given a reasonable phase-in period to meet appropriate standards. In addition, my bill puts the burden of complying with these requirements on the animal owners. The bill would prevent animal owners from using contracts or similar arrangements to avoid responsibility for animal waste management. The bill covers operations with an approximate one-time animal capacity above 1,330 hogs; 57,000 chickens; 270 dairy cattle; or 530 slaughter cattle. Each animal owner with at least that many animals must submit a waste management plan to USDA for approval, whether or not the animals are kept in one place. Animal feeding operations under those sizes will qualify under USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program for additional technical and cost-share assistance to implement animal waste management plans. I want to be clear that my bill does not interfere with the role of EPA and the States in monitoring pollution, or is it a substitute for EPA strengthening its current regulations. I see it as an essential part of a cooperative approach to the problem by both EPA and USDA--and I look forward to EPA's proposals in this area. I also look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production, which is working on these issues in great detail. We must take strong action now to halt the pollution of our water from animal waste and other farm runoff. Other issues that are outside the scope of this bill also need to be addressed, including management of municipal and industrial wastewater and more careful application of commercial fertilizers. My proposal is one part of a national solution to our water quality concerns.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. Huber, in his article in Forbes said: Here's why stock prices are really supposed to fall. Employment rates rise above some critical flash point. So wages rise sharply. So prices of goods rise-- just as rising wages are boosting demand. Inflation soars. So interest rates go up. Stock prices crash. This is a perfectly sound theory, but it requires some facts. Where's the critical flash point? Do the employment statistics mean what they used to mean? Do they mean anything at all? Officially speaking, America hasn't yet discovered microwave ovens or women's lib. Bone-weary though she may be, the stay-at-home mother doesn't labor at all in the eyes of employment statisticians. But she could, easily enough. With one new mom working at a day care center, three other moms can enter the official work force when they choose. So long as many women remain ambivalent about where to work, in the home or out, the supply of labor will remain far more elastic than the statistics suggest. Memo to Alan Greenspan: Wire roses to Gloria Steinem. Again, I am reading from the article that was in Forbes written by Mr. Peter Huber. Labor markets have stretched into the home; they have also spilled out of the country. A U.S. multinational doesn't raise wages in Maine if it can shift production to a more elastic labor market in Mexico.* * * Labor statistics, in short, don't mean much unless they track where goods are produced and consumed. The more transnational economies become, the worse the tracking gets. Then there's silicon. It takes a mix of capital and labor to manufacture a mousetrap, and economists have always allowed that the mix can change. In the past, however, the substitution effects were slow. You could hire and fire workers a lot faster than you could acquire or retire machines and buildings. So ready supplies of capital didn't discipline the price of labor in the short run. Is that still true? Computers are getting easier to deploy, smarter and--because of rapid innovation and falling costs-- shorter-lived. Many a manager can now expand production as easily by investing an extra dollar in chips or software as he can by hiring new workers. Technology can have a powerful wage moderating effect long before silicon becomes a complete substitute for sapiens. All it takes is enough substitution at the margin. The substitution is happening. Productivity, it now appears, has been rising a good bit faster in recent years than government statisticians recognized. Three new working moms with computers produce as much as four old working dads without. And newly minted Pentiums to the ranks of those in search of useful work, and unemployment statistics look very different. * * * * * This much we do know for sure. If the officially audited supply of labor keeps falling-- Which is what I have just said has been happening-- and the price does not rise-- Which has been happening-- then we must either give up on economics completely or conclude that there's more to the supply side of labor markets then meets the official eye. Perhaps it's simply that American women, Mexican men and Intel's progeny have all become good substitutes for what the official statisticians call U.S. labor. Maybe welfare reform is effectively expanding labor pools, too. * * * According to official statistics and economic models, a supply-side crisis in labor markets should have reignited inflation some time ago. Almost 3 years ago. Investors may indeed be crazy to ignore this indubitable, though theoretical, truth. But if so, wage earners are crazier still--so crazy they don't raise the price of their labor when they can. Then again, maybe they can't. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the majority leader. I do feel very strongly about this issue. That is why I am objecting to their being brought up, and if they were brought up, I would certainly be here to speak about them at length. I don't think there should be votes on them today. I would be prepared to talk at length further on Fed policy and on these nominees in particular, if need be. Hopefully, we can reach some resolution of this matter. If not now, perhaps later on. Not today, certainly, but hopefully perhaps sometime later on this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. If the leader will yield further, if last week is any prelude to this week, I think we are going to have large gaps of time this week on the Senate floor. There will be time for people to come out and discuss extraneous and various things. As I said, I know there are some other Senators who have expressed to me a desire to engage in some discussion. I do not know how long but some discussion. And I think the leader would agree this is important enough that we ought to discuss it anyway. I know he is not impressed that they are not here today. I understand that. But I am hopefully operating within my right to engage in a discussion on these nominees. I would, of course, object to them being brought up en bloc. I do not desire to thwart these nominations. However, I do want them brought up separately and singly as individual nominees and to be able to use some time this week to talk about them. I would be prepared to do that at great length today. I am here, and I am in pretty good physical shape so I am ready to discuss them at length today, if he would like to do that, as is his right, but I would also be willing to see what we could do during the remainder of the week to engage in some discussion, and I will do that. If there are gaps this week, I will come to the floor and talk about it.

Mr. HARKIN. It is pretty thick. I have a lot that I can say about them.

Mr. HARKIN. I respond by saying I appreciate the position the majority leader is in. Quite frankly, I think that the occasion of considering a couple of nominees to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors should be a time of some debate and some discussion on the Senate floor as to the Fed policy and to the direction the Fed has taken. Again, I do not need to remind the majority leader of this. He knows full well there seems to be so many people who think the Federal Reserve is some great Federal agency that is not beholding to the Congress. I keep pointing out it is a creature of Congress. It is not a constitutional entity. It is a creature of Congress and by law we have the right and I think the constitutional obligation to oversee the Federal Reserve, obviously to pass judgment, to advise and consent on nominations but also to give guidance and direction as to what their policy ought to be. And I think that these nominees deserve to have some discussion and debate. I would say in all honesty to my friend from Mississippi, there are on this side other Senators who I know want to engage in this discussion and debate who cannot be here today. I am here. And I am willing to talk--well, I have my notebook here, if the majority leader would like to see it. I have a few hours I could talk.

Mr. HARKIN. If the majority leader will yield.