Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 8 of the 10 minutes. If the chair will interrupt me, I will appreciate it. This amendment all but eliminates the National Endowment for the Arts. In other words, it eliminates a Federal role. I believe the Senator from Texas is well-intentioned. However, the result would be disastrous for the arts. NEA national leadership grants have supported a number of very worthy projects that would not have been supported by a State. For example, the design competition in 1981 that led to the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. What State would have funded that if it was not going to be in the State, but was going to be located in the District of Columbia? The Senator from Ohio made mention of all the money that goes to New York. Let's look at some of that money. Through the national leadership grants, the NEA provided a grant to Chamber Music of America in New York, but this grant sponsored chamber music rural residencies, which brought professional musicians to small towns, such as Jesup and Decorah and Fayette and Mount Vernon, IA. Artists lived and worked in these small towns for up to 2 years. They taught in the schools. They performed concerts for citizens in the communities all over the State of Iowa. Thousands of Iowans benefited from this. But, if you look at the grant, it went to New York. But the artists performed in Iowa, for up to 2 years. If we take all of this money, as the Senator from Texas wants, and give it just to the States, will, then, the State of New York fund a program that goes to Iowa? I rather doubt it. They will keep the money there. But because we have the NEA making these grants, giving them out, then they can direct and guide those to go out to States like Iowa and Nebraska and Missouri, and States where we don't get a lot of money for arts. So, what State would fund a program like that? What State? Would Texas? Would Texas fund a program that would send artists to Iowa for 2 years? I doubt that. The NEA has also supported dance touring programs. The Alvin Ailey dance group traveled to Atlanta, GA; Redding, OR; Tuscon, AR; Iowa City, IA; Milwaukee, WI. Would Texas fund something like that? I doubt it. Would New York fund something like that? I doubt it. Would California fund something like that? I doubt it. But, because we have a National Endowment for the Arts, we are able to get this out. A grant to the American Library Association sponsored the ``Writers Live At The Library.'' This program went all over America, to places like Rapid City, SD; Medina, OH; Buchanan, MI; Muncie, IN. Would Texas have sponsored that? I doubt it. Would New York alone have sponsored that? I don't think so. But the National Endowment for the Arts did. That is my point. You could look at a lot of these grants. They may go to a State. But they seep out and go around the United States. If we adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, that will end. We will not have a National Endowment for the Arts. We will simply have a bunch of States out there. I rather doubt that States will fund programs that will go to another State. Mr. President, this amendment has never been reviewed or discussed in any format before. Present law provides 35 percent to the States. Under the bill, under the leadership of Senator Jeffords, that goes to 40 percent. It was adopted by a 14-to-4 bipartisan vote in committee. I might also point out that Federal funds are matched by the States on a 1-to-1 basis. If you increase this amount of money to the States, they will have to go to their State legislatures to get the amount of money up. Will that happen? Well, in some States it might, in some States it might not. I also will point out that the Hutchison amendment imposes a cap on administrative costs of 5 percent. Right now the President's budget calls for a cap of 14 percent. Here is the problem. Many of the State agencies are quite small, so State support varies from State to State. If you put a cap on like that and you have low spending, that just destroys the program. Obviously, as you know, the more money you have in the program the less the amount of administrative costs there are for administering that program. So the 5-percent cap would also not only hurt many of the State agencies, but would be disastrous for the National Endowment for the Arts. Mr. President, the Hutchison amendment is a severe and undeserved rebuke to the arts endowment. It may be well-intentioned, but I also point out that if this is so good, why is this opposed by the very agencies that would supposedly benefit from this? The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies is opposed to this amendment. That organization believes that the current distribution between Federal and State is appropriate. So, again, while it may sound good to give all this money to the States, the fact is, the Chamber Music of America in New York came to Iowa and lived there for 2 years in our small towns and communities. It may have looked like a grant to New York, but it was run by the National Endowment for the Arts. If you give all this money to the States, if New York got all this money, would they then of their own volition fund the chamber music program that we had in Iowa for 2 years? As I said before, I doubt it, and I don't think Texas would either. For those reasons, this amendment should be defeated. I am told also, and I have a letter from the White House--I will just read it: The administration understands that an amendment may be offered to increase significantly block grants to the States, thus severely diminishing the Federal leadership role of the NEA. In addition, the administration understands that an amendment may be offered making it administratively impossible for NEA to carry out its function. That's the 5-percent cap. If such amendments were adopted, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill. I believe this bill is too important to be vetoed. I believe the NEA is too important to be cut up, segmented and destroyed by this amendment. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself--do I have 10 minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors be printed in the Record. I won't read it all, but it says: We need to maintain our federal commitment to preserve this country's rich cultural heritage and traditions and to nurture imagination and creatively to strengthen the future of this country. Again, in support of the distribution of funds that are in the bill, from the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important issue, child labor. Over the years, I have come to this floor many times to speak about abusive and exploitative child labor and have introduced legislation to combat it. But today I am here to specifically raise awareness about child servitude and to speak out against this horrific practice. Several years ago, the South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude (SAACS) based in New Delhi, India, began to devote this day, September 18, to raising awareness about children forced to work. I would like to take a moment to talk about SAACS and their endeavors under the leadership of my good friend, Kailash Satiyarti. In April of this year, I visited Mukti Ashram or liberation retreat established by SAACS which is located outside of New Delhi. This is a place where bonded child laborers are freed from the shackles of slavery and are able to attend school, learn a trade and most importantly to regain their self-worth. I was deeply moved by these children and impressed by their progress in overcoming their previous circumstances. Mr. President, I want to be clear. I am not talking about children who work part-time after school or on weekends. There's nothing wrong with that. I worked in my youth--perhaps so did you. That is not the issue. The issue is children who are forced to work in hazardous environments--many under slave-like conditions who sweat long hours for little or no pay and are thus denied education or the opportunity to grow and develop. It's the kind of work that endangers a child's physical and emotional well-being. And let there be no mistake: When the growth of children is stopped so is the growth of a nation. I would also like to take a moment to remember a former child laborer whose life was ended but whose message still resonates throughout the world. His name was Iqbal Masih. He was sold into slavery at age of 4. He was shackled to the carpet looms to slave 14 hours a day, 6 days a week for 6 long years. Until, he broke free. But instead of turning away from the hell that was his life, Iqbal did the opposite. He brought his world to us. He showed us things we didn't want to see. He told us things we didn't want to hear. And he challenged us, when he said ``the world's enslaved children are your responsibility.'' Iqbal Masih was a leader and a crusader, sadly, he was assassinated on April 16, 1995. At the age of 13, his voice was silenced. We remember him today and the hundreds of millions of children who toil away and remember them in the best way possible--by keeping his message alive and his crusade going strong. As I mentioned earlier, I traveled to South Asia in April and laid a wreath at Iqbal's grave in Pakistan. I also visited the school in Kasur that was built in Iqbal's memory with the support of students from the Broad Meadows School in Quincy, MA and donations from children throughout the United States. Throughout my visit to South Asia, I carried the same message everywhere I went and to anyone who would listen: child labor is a big concern in the United States and that concern is not going to go away. I am going to continue to work hard to make sure that it's on the agenda in Congress, at the United Nations next month, and at the ILO. The definition of child labor is not an American standard--it is an international one. ILO Convention 138 is clear. The minimum age for employment is 15 years--developing countries may invoke a transitional age of 14--and 18 years is the minimum for hazardous work. Virtually every nation on Earth has similar laws on its books today. So let me put to rest the notion that somehow this is the ``West'' imposing its will on others. These are not the West's standards. These are the world's standards. And the fact is, some of the most powerful calls for the elmination of child labor have been sounded from the governments of the developing world. The Delhi Declaration, adopted in 1995, includes a strongly worded resolution on child labor. As does a resolution adopted at last year's ministerial conference of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation held in Pakistan. I believe that it is our job to work together to transform the resolutions we adopt from words to deeds--from intentions to actions. And that is what I have committed much of my time and energy to doing. In 1992, I introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act, the most comprehensive legislative initiative in the United States to end abusive and exploitative child labor. Some called it revolutionary legislation but, in truth, it is rooted in the most conservative of notions: International trade cannot ignore international values. It is true that the vast majority of child laborers do not work in the export sector. And of course, the exploitation of children is deplorable under any circumstances. But, the reason I have focused on child labor in industries that export to the United States is that we need to begin somewhere. The export sector is an area where we have leverage and where we can try and effect some change now. Since the time I began my effort, support has grown tremendously. As I have traveled around the United States and spoken with people about the issue of child labor, I have found that consumers want to get involved. They want information. They want to know if products on the shelves are made by children. And they don't want to buy it if it is. A recent survey by Marymount University of Virginia found that more than three out of four Americans said they would avoid shopping at stores if they were aware that the goods sold there were made by child labor. Consumers also said that they would be willing to pay more for a garment if it were guaranteed to be made under humane conditions. So, Mr. President, American consumers have spoken. They don't want to reward companies with their hard earned dollars by buying products made with child labor. And the Senate too has spoken. In 1993, this body appropriately put itself on record in opposition to the exploitation of children for commercial gain. In my view this was the first step toward ending child labor. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill, the Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act, to inform and empower American consumers by establishing a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without child labor. I support labeling for three fundamental reasons. First, it takes a comprehensive approach. It says legislative assemblies--such as the U.S. Congress--can't do it alone through legislation. The U.S. Department of Labor--can't do it alone through enforcement. It takes all of us from the private sector to labor groups to human rights organizations--to take responsibility and work together. We must attack the scourge of child labor from all fronts. Second, labeling is based on choice. Companies can choose whether to use the label to keep consumers fully informed and consumers can choose to vote against child labor with their pocketbook. Third, I support labeling because it is practical. It is working. Earlier this year, I traveled to India to visit Kailash Satyarthi, the founder of South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude, and the RUGMARK headquarters. RUGMARK is a label placed on hand-knotted carpets to assure consumers that they were made without child labor. In Europe, about 700,000 carpets have been imported from India bearing the RUGMARK label. And here in the United States, where the RUGMARK campaign just began, several thousand rugs have already been imported. So, Mr. President, I would conclude by saying this. We have made some progress. Five years ago, I introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act. Four years ago, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution, which I sponsored, prohibiting the importation of products made by child labor. Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Labor began a series of reports on child labor that represents the most thorough documentation ever assembled by the American Government on this issue. Two years ago, a historic memorandum of understanding was signed in Bangladesh to move children from garment factories to schools. Last year, a similar effort began in Pakistan in the soccer ball industry. Mr. President, in the coming weeks we will be debating the fast track legislation which gives the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements. I have been a supporter of such legislation in the past. During these past weeks, I have had several meetings with members of the administration and have raised my concerns about children making goods or picking agricultural products in Mexico that end up in the United States. So, Mr. President, I have to ask are the NAFTA side agreements on labor standards adequately preventing the exploitation of children for commercial gain? According to the September 1 issue of the U.S. News and World Report, as many as 4 million children work in Mexico. These children can be found gluing shoes in workshops, lifting two or three times their body weight in produce and cleaning up toxic oil residues, despite the laws in their country outlawing child labor. Mr. President, the administration is fond of saying that trade agreements are necessary to level the playing field for American workers, but for the life of me I can't understand how an American worker can compete with a child working 7 days a week, 14 hours a day for 14 cents. The United States must not lower its standards rather we should insist on countries raising their standards to ours. It seems to me that the challenge before us is how to stop this exploitation. The global market is now the local market. Today our neighbors are no longer around the block, they are around the world. And we all have a responsibility to help our neighbors. Now is the time to learn from our past trade agreements and insist on a basic fundamental premise of protecting children. While, I don't claim to have all the answers on eradicating child labor. I will continue my efforts to end the scourge of child labor. I am always looking for new suggestions, ideas and approaches. But I do say the progress that's been made on eradicating child labor is irreversible. We must keep looking forward.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Now I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Missouri, he couldn't be further from the truth. This is the American Literary Anthology in which the poem ``Lighght'' appears. No Government agent or employee decided what went into this book. I can't for the life of me figure out what the Senator from Missouri is talking about. For example, who decides whether a writer gets published? It is the editor of a magazine, the publisher of the magazine. Who decided what poems and what fiction, essays, went into this anthology? Editors and publishers of magazines. They all got together and went through all of their different magazines and decided who they thought ought to be in here. It wasn't Government. No Government agent did this. No Government employee did that. Does the Senator think that writers just sort of spring up and, because they are so good in the beginning, that right away they appear in the New Yorker Magazine? Of course not. They appear in these small literary magazines around the country, and it is the editors of those magazines and the publishers who decide what gets published. They were the ones who decided what went into this anthology. There is no Government agency. I don't know of one Government agent who decided on an NEA grant. It has all been done in a peer review process. That would be like saying, I say to my friend from Missouri, that we should cut out research at the National Institutes of Health because it is Government money, and why should the Government pick which research to do, whether it is cancer or heart, whether it is diabetes or Alzheimer's? The present occupant of the chair knows a lot about this. Should the Government be picking the researchers because we put the money into the NIH? We put a lot of money, as the occupant of the chair knows, into NIH. We don't tell them what to pick. They do it through the peer review process, through scientists in the field who decide what is legitimate, good research to do. The same is done in the National Endowment for the Arts. We don't sit there. No one in the Government sits there and says we pick this and we pick that. They set up boards, commissions, they set up peer review entities that decide what is going to be. You can disagree with them, and sometimes I have disagreed with them, too, but that is no reason to end the National Endowment for the Arts. So I repeat, Mr. President, I had a lengthy conversation yesterday with Mr. George Plimpton and today, again, with Jorie Graham, who, I repeat to my friend from Missouri, won the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for poetry. She was emphatic that she and so many of her colleagues would not have been able to develop their talents were it not for the NEA grants they received, and then go on to win the Pulitzer Prize. She said the NEA took a risk, I say to my friend from Missouri. She said it was a gamble. They didn't know if she was going to be a good writer, poet or not. But she said the cost to the taxpayers for the creative fellowship was 2 cents, two pennies. That is what we are putting into supporting writers and poets around the country--2 cents per taxpayer. Again, if I may use the analogy of the National Institutes of Health, we don't expect that all $13.5 billion that we have put in every year at NIH is going to produce a medical miracle. Not at all. A lot of that research is dead end and nothing ever happens, but we believe in doing the research. So, again, NIH is not right 100 percent of the time, and we shouldn't expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be right 100 percent of the time and that every writer that is picked through this process is going to be a Pulitzer Prize winner or another Samuel Clemens or another Jorie Graham. No, some of them won't make it, but at least we are getting them out. As Jorie Graham told me, she said, ``You know, there is a market out there. The American people aren't stupid. If they read the poetry and they read the literature, like cream on milk, the best will rise to the top.'' But until you put that milk together and put it in the bottle, forget it. That is what we are doing through the NEA grants; we are bringing these people together and giving them an outlet for their creative abilities. Some will make it, some won't. Some will write a one-word poem that is calligraphic. It may mean something to somebody. It doesn't particularly to me. Or some people like the poet I just pointed out will write a 17-page poem, which also didn't mean much to me either. But I can tell you that there are some writers in here that have meant a lot to me and a lot to a lot of other people. People like Robert Penn Warren, John Ashberry, Jim Harrison, W. S. Merwyn, who, by the way, was also at the Writers Workshop and received the Pulitzer Prize in poetry, and James Tate, Joyce Carol Oates. They were in this anthology, too. So I guess that is what we are saying. It is not an elitist institution. The creative writer fellowships are made to writers with no other means to support themselves. These grants don't go to the wealthy; they don't even go to the middle class. Second, I might point out to my friend from Missouri, these grants also are awarded geographically, not just to a few areas. Since these grants are awarded on a geographical basis, the writings that we get reflect the regional and aesthetic values of those regions. How else could we get the flavor of what it means to be born and raised in Iowa on a farm unless perhaps we read something by Jane Smiley, ``A Thousand Acres,'' and what it means today about what is happening to the farmers in Iowa. Or what would it mean if we didn't have a flavor of what was happening in the West or in the South with writers who can understand, who feel and are sensitive to the aesthetics of that State or that region or that area? That is why NEA grants go out to regions and geographically so it doesn't just go to one certain area of America. The critics many times focus only on those from the cities, but as I have just pointed out, many, many, many rural writers have also received awards and many have gone on to do great things. So, the Senator from Missouri can get up all he wants. I just wish he would be straight with the facts. First of all, he or his staff should have checked and let us know--let everyone know--that this poem was awarded a grant in 1969. Second, I wish the Senator from Missouri had further checked his facts and found out that the book ``Blood of Mugwump'' received no NEA grant. A letter from NEA March 17, 1997, points out that ``Blood of Mugwump'' did not receive an NEA grant. As I said to my friend from Missouri, all he has to do, if ever he has a doubt about what NEA is doing, is pick up the phone and call them--they are here in Washington--and ask them and they will be glad to set you straight on what they are doing. I will wind up by saying, Mr. President, for 2 cents from every taxpayer in America--just 2 pennies--we can go out and lift up some of these young writers and poets all over America, artists who may be like Jorie Graham and have a young child but they have innate talent, to be able to get across to people, as she did with poetry, what it is like in small rural towns or small communities of rural Iowa. She said without those 2 cents and with a small child, she wouldn't have been able to do it. The Senator can get up and say he doesn't like ``Lighght''; that is fine. There is a lot of poetry I don't like either. As I said, I am not partial to this particular poem, although there is a lot of calligraphic poetry I do like. I will say one other thing. I was looking at some information that came out from Mr. Frank Luntz. I don't know Mr. Frank Luntz, but he has been in the news a lot lately. He wrote a book on how the GOP can use language to manipulate people. His book is called ``The Language of the 21st Century.'' I guess it was presented to the Republican conference before the August recess. I was looking at some excerpts from Mr. Luntz' book. He is saying how people should talk about things. Oh, there is addressing the gender gap. There is health care. How to talk about Clinton. Education. And then he has here, ``Prolog: Luntz's 12 step program to make Republican language more soothing to voters.'' Here is a quote from his book: Every time Republicans get into a conflict with the President, you begin to shout, mistakenly believing that if you speak loud enough, your message will get through. But the American people aren't deaf. They simply don't understand what you're saying, nor understand its relevance to their day-to-day lives. Linguistically, you're out of touch with the American people. So he has 12 principles. I will not read them all, obviously, but I will read the seventh principle of Mr. Frank Luntz, who is writing this for the GOP: ``Abolish the National Endowment for the Arts.'' That is what he is saying Republicans should say: ``Abolish the National Endowment for the Arts.'' ``This makes sense,'' Mr. Luntz says, ``for strategic reasons as well as on principle.'' I will give him that benefit. ``Napoleon spoke of the importance of feeding your army if you expect the soldiers to go off to battle. You must deliver some nourishment to the true believers. You need a symbol that both differentiates the two parties and stirs up the troops.'' No. 7 in his book of the 12 principles. If you want to stir up the troops, that is fine. Again, I hope they will be clear on the facts and that we understand what this is about. I don't believe it is really valid, and, again, I happen to like the Senator from Missouri, he is a good guy and I like him, but I think he has gotten mixed up on his facts. But then, again, we all do periodically around here. But I just wish that he would be a little bit more careful in looking at what the National Endowment for the Arts really does and how it operates in Missouri and Iowa and the Midwest and to think about whether or not we would want to throw out all funding for the National Institutes of Health because some of the money we gave them might have gone for bad research or something we didn't like. I don't think so. We may not like all the things the NEA does, but on the whole, out of 112,000 grants in its history, this Senator only knows of 40 that has been raised as issues on the floor of the Senate or the House in the 22 years I have been privileged to serve here. So, again, Mr. President, the National Endowment for the Arts is much too important to us as a nation, much too important for America, for our diversity, for understanding who we are and where we have come from and perhaps even where we are going to have maybe one example of one poem disliked by one or two or three Senators be the cause of not funding the entire National Endowment for the Arts. It has done an outstanding job. We should make sure we continue to fund it, not so that Government can pick winners and losers and all that, but to make sure that those who are out there in the field, those budding writers and poets will at least have some hope that they, too, can become the next Jorie Graham at the Writers Workshop in Iowa and win a Nobel Prize for her or his poetry. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to.

Mr. HARKIN. I only responded because the Senator raised the issue. He was saying, questioning me, that was I saying all these great ones all received NEA grants. I would say no. But I think the question I asked was how many more were out there that could have risen up? He mentioned Samuel Clemens. That was the last century and of course, again, we had great musicians and we had great artists and poets in the past. But again, I challenge my friend from Missouri to think about this. The few that we talk about in the past century were so few in number. I mean, they were absolutely the pinnacle, absolutely the best. How many more who didn't quite make it up there could have been very good? Maybe they wouldn't have been the top echelon, but they might have been very good writers and purveyors of senses of the esthetics of different regions of this country that weren't there. Sure, you can point to Samuel Clemens and a few others. But how many more might have come along, might have been great, might have been maybe not at that pinnacle, but maybe up in that level who died aborning because they had no support whatsoever? I might also, tongue in cheek, ask my friend from Missouri, who has gone after some writings that he claims are not quite appropriate for readers to read--you know, old Samuel Clemens wrote some things that were pretty risque. I wonder if the Senator from Missouri has ever read ``Letters From Heaven''? If the Senator from Missouri has never read ``Letters From Heaven'' by Samuel Clemens, I ask him to read it and bring it on the floor and read it. I doubt he would want to read ``Letters From Heaven'' on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator in just a second. He'll find people like John Irving, Kurt Vonnegut, Tennessee Williams, Flannery O'Connor, Jane Smiley, who just wrote the wonderful book ``A Thousand Acres'' and won a Pulitzer Prize for it. It is now being made into a movie. Writers Workshop. NEA recipients. No, he didn't mention those.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, Mr. President, if the Senator from Missouri was really serious, I am sure that he could have found out that in March of this year the National Endowment for the Arts wrote a letter to the director, who put out this book, I guess, under this grant, that it wasn't supported by the NEA. And the Senator from Missouri would not have stood in this Chamber today and said that ``Blood of Mugwump'' was another example of bad taxpayer spending by the National Endowment for the Arts. I caution my friend from Missouri that he simply check his facts. That is all. And I am certain that if he just wanted to check his facts, if the Senator from Missouri just simply wanted to check whether or not what he was saying was factual, a simple call to the National Endowment for the Arts--they are not hard to get hold of. They are right down here in Washington, DC. Their phone number is 682-5400. I would suggest to my friend from Missouri that he simply pick up the phone and call them, ask them: Is it so that ``Blood of Mugwump'' was funded by an NEA grant? And he would have been told the facts. So I think we have an obligation when we debate here on the Senate floor to be, at least, somewhat careful. I know we make mistakes around here. But, at least, try to check our facts out. In that regard, Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit more about the poem ``Lighght.'' Now, the reason this came to my attention is because this was an issue in my first campaign for public office in 1974 when then incumbent Congressman Bill Scherle in the House had gone after the National Endowment for the Arts on the same basis, that they had funded this word, one-word poem ``Lighght.'' And so I want to set the record straight, and I want to talk a little bit about it to get the facts out, the latest facts out. Mr. President, here are the facts. The National Endowment for the Arts sponsored a three-part series entitled ``American Literary Anthology.'' This was the idea of George Plimpton and also Roger Stevens, that they would seek out writers, poets around the country who were not well known, who maybe had published in small literary journals that had small circulation, to have a contest to put them together and to pick what judges decided were the best of these new writers and to put them in an American anthology to give them a wider berth so that more people could read them. The purpose again was to support small literary magazines and their contributors. After all, most writers, Mr. President, don't start writing for Esquire or the New Yorker or the big magazines. They start with small literary journals around the country. And so that was the idea of George Plimpton and Roger Stevens, to get some of these new writers out there and bring them in and give them a wider circulation. I spoke just the other evening with George Plimpton about this. He and Peter Ardery were the directors of the ``American Literary Anthology.'' He told me that the NEA grant in 1966 had three goals. First, to provide wider distribution for literary works which first appeared in magazines with limited circulation. Second, to supplement the small stipend the magazines used to provide to the authors. As Mr. Plimpton told me, in many cases these writers got nothing except four or five copies of the magazine in which they were published. So, it was to supplement it. And here was the supplement: $1,000 for prose material, $500 for poems. That was to the contributor, the writer. And, third, to reward the magazines which published the literary works in the first place: $500 for prose, $250 for poems. The total was $60,000 for the second volume. So the Senator from Missouri is wrong again. Again, I ask the Senator from Missouri, please check your facts. The amount of grant for this one-word poem was not $1,500, it was $750: $500 to the writer, $250 to the magazine. I am certain the Senator will say that $750 is still too much for this poem, but nonetheless I thought it important to set the record straight, that it is not $1,500, it was $750. I got a copy of the American Literary Anthology, volume II. Actually I read some of the poems in it. It is interesting that the Senator from Missouri picked out a poem written by Aram Saroyan, the son of William Saroyan, by the way. I don't know Aram Saroyan. I have never read his poetry before and I have not since. But I looked in volume II of the American Literary Anthology to see who else was published: people like Robert Penn Warren, John Ashberry, Jim Harrison--I say to the Senator from Missouri, Jim Harrison, who later wrote ``Legends of the Fall,'' which has been made into a movie, I guess; W.S. Merwyn, Pulitzer Prize- winning poet who also attended the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa, and I will say more about that in a second; James Tate, one of our foremost poets in America; Joyce Carol Oates, also in volume II. That is just a sampling. Why didn't he pick out some of those? No; he picked out this one-word poem, just to show people how it appeared in the book. Here it is, volume II, a one-word poem, on one page. This is called calligraphic poetry. Calligraphic poetry is poetry where it's not just the content of the poem, but it is how it is laid out on the page that also sends a message, or conveys a thought or a feeling. I might point out to the Senator from Missouri that calligraphic poetry is not new; it is very old. In fact, some calligraphic poetry goes back to the 18th century, some in religious poetry. These religious poetry might be shaped in the form of pulpits, crosses, churches, saints, icons, things like that, to convey a religious image by the way the poem looked as well as the words that the poem contained. I must say, I think the Senator from Missouri, if I might just say--I think the Senator from Missouri picked the wrong poem. There is a poem, it starts on page 273 of the second volume of the American Literary Anthology. It is ``The Last Will And Testimony of Art Evergreen,'' and it goes on for 17 pages. If the Senator had picked that poem, he might have a little more sympathy from this Senator. I say that tongue in cheek. But why did the Senator not also pick the poem on page 339 by James Tate called ``Stray Animals''? No; he picked this one-word poem because, obviously, he doesn't like it. Frankly, I am not certain I like it either. It doesn't say much to me. But some calligraphic poetry I like, in the way the words are shaped and put on a page. That one doesn't say much to me at all. But, nonetheless, it is legitimate poetry. And there are a lot of other poems in there. Again, the Senator may not care for this type of poetry, but that is no reason to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts. Over its 32- year history, the NEA has made 112,000 grants. To date, about 40 that we have been able to find have caused people some problems--about 40 out of 112,000. I think that is a pretty good record. Again, the Senator did not mention all of the other people who have gotten grants from NEA. A little while ago I spoke on the phone with Jorie Graham. She is at the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. Last year, 1996, she won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry. I had a long talk with her. Here is an individual who received an NEA grant, and she told me without that she would not have been able to take the year off and write poetry because she had a young child. So that grant enabled her to do that. I might also point out with some sense of pride that in 1996, last year, the three nominees for the Pulitzer Prize in poetry, Charles Wright, Donald Justice and Jorie Graham, were all from the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. It is interesting to note that it was the student, Jorie Graham, who won the prize. All three were recipients of NEA grants. Why does the Senator from Missouri not talk about that? Why doesn't he go after the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa? Here, I will be glad to give it to my friend from Missouri. Here is a whole packet of pages, going clear back to 1970, of writers and poets who have received grants, who were at the Writers Workshop. Who will the Senator find in here? People like Robert Penn Warren, he'll find people like Kurt Vonnegut, he'll find people like Tennessee Williams-- he may not like Tennessee Williams.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator from Missouri would like, I am sure that we could sign him up for People For the American Way, and he could get the correct information as to what is going on and not the false information that he got from the so-called Christian Coalition. And so again the Senator from Missouri has brought up something that simply has no basis in fact. And I have here again, Mr. President, a letter dated March 17, 1997, from Karen Christensen, general counsel of the National Endowment for the Arts. It is written to Mr. Curtis White. I will not read the whole thing. It just said here: The progress report which you filed with this agency erroneously included ``Blood of Mugwump'' as among those volumes partially supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts; this is not the case. In any future publications, including promotional materials and reprints of FC2 volumes, please remove any reference to the National Endowment for the Arts from any publication which is not supported by an NEA grant. I would appreciate prompt attention to this matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, first of all, the Senator from Missouri has repeatedly talked about the poem ``Lighght.'' He has held up this little piece of paper, and he has talked about this poem and castigated it as one of the great spending holes of the U.S. Government, we spent money on the poem ``Lighght.'' Well, I saw that and I recognized it. Believe it or not, I recognized that poem. And so I thought I would take some time since I have a history in this to shed a little light on ``Lighght''. Now, again, I am glad that the Senator from California brought this up because the Senator from Missouri never did mention this until the Senator from California, Mrs Boxer, brought it up. This poem ``Lighght'' was published in 1969. The Senator from Missouri did not say that. He admitted it after the Senator from California pointed that out. But in listening in the last couple of days to the Senator from Missouri, one would have assumed that this grant was just made, not in fact made in 1969, when it was. Mr. President, the debate on the NEA, National Endowment for the Arts, has set a new standard for debate in the Senate. First of all, suggesting that we should eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts in 1997 because of a grant that was made in 1969 begs incredulity. That would be like saying the State of Missouri, since it had laws on its books that allowed segregated schools until the 1960's, will not be eligible for Federal education programs. Or saying that the University of Alabama will be prohibited from participating in Federal student aid programs because it was segregated prior to June 1963, or the schools in Little Rock, AR. Times change. Conditions change. Well, now, the Senator from Missouri said, oh, OK, fine. ``Lighght,'' this was 1969, but then he held up a piece of paper which he was reading something from--I didn't catch it all, but it was from a book called ``Blood of Mugwump,'' which I never heard of until today, but I remembered someone had said something to me about it and I looked it up. My staff gave me this. Lo and behold, the Senator from Missouri is wrong again. ``Blood of Mugwump'' did not receive any NEA funding. How many of these misrepresentations will we hear from the Senator from Missouri in debate on funding of the National Endowment for the Arts? Now, I have here a letter, Mr. President, from People For The American Way. It said: In a letter to Congressional Members dated June 25, 1997, the Christian Coalition urged Members to ``vote against any amendments to increase NEA funding'' and asserted that the NEA is now ``funding the proliferation of pornography,'' citing specifically two films, ``Sick'' and ``Age 12,'' and one book, ``Blood of Mugwump.'' Fact 5: The Christian Coalition is wrong. The NEA did not fund any of the three examples used. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this material from the People For The American Way be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I will just answer my friend from Missouri. I just had a long conversation on the phone with Jorie Graham, the poet from the University of Iowa Writers Workshop, who won the Pulitzer Prize last year. She told me without that NEA grant--she had a little child--she would not have been able to take the year off to develop her talents as a poet that enabled her to win the Pulitzer Prize. Yes, she absolutely stated that to me. Some of these, maybe not. But I can tell you some people like Kurt Vonnegut and some people, when they first started out--no. They needed these grants to get up to a level.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't know. He got an NEA grant at one point, I believe.

Mr. HARKIN. I will respond to my friend this way. That is true. We have had a lot of great poets and writers who received no NEA grants. How many more, though, were out there in the little towns of Missouri, in the fields of Iowa, around the coal mines of Kentucky and in the hills of Kentucky, who wanted to develop their writing skills and their talents but did not have the support to do so? How many were left lying fallow in the ground because we wouldn't even come up with the two pennies, the two pennies per taxpayer per year, to help them to develop their talent? I think that is the appropriate question to ask, is how many were out there who didn't get the nourishment who, if they had the nourishment, could have been great writers and poets in our society today?

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield for a question.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely true. I appreciate what the Senator said. It has been a real joy working with the Senator from Vermont both in the House and in the U.S. Senate. So, Mr. President, as the Senator from Vermont said, Bobby is moving on. I am absolutely certain that his next endeavor, which is the center for the study and advancement of disability policy located at George Washington University, will have an immediate and long-term effect on national policy for Americans with disabilities. I might just add as an aside, Bobby is capable of nothing less. So as Bobby Silverstein leaves the Senate, I congratulate him on his outstanding accomplishments. I thank him for his tireless service to his country. I extend my best wishes to Bobby, to his wife Lynne and their sons, Mark and Evan, for continuing success in the many years ahead. So, Bobby, thank you for a job well done. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend, the Senator from Vermont, who again is known for his keen intellect, but also a big heart. I appreciate what he just said about Bobby Silverstein. I should have recognized the fact that the Senator would have worked with him, of course, on the House side. Again, the people who worked so hard to make our country more fair and to break down barriers of discrimination against people--surely no one can claim that Senator Jim Jeffords needs to take a back seat to anyone. Certainly, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont need not take a back seat to anyone. Senator Jim Jeffords has always been in the forefront of those fights, especially working on the issue I have been talking about, people with disabilities. The Senator from Vermont has always been in the forefront assuring that people with disabilities have their full constitutional and civil rights in this country. So I appreciate what he said about Bobby Silverstein, and coming from the distinguished Senator from Vermont, believe me, it means a lot to me and it means a lot to Bobby Silverstein.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise now to pay tribute to a great friend of mine, a close personal friend and someone who has added significantly to the Senate and the House over the course of almost an entire adult lifetime of work and, moreover, who has added to moving America forward in terms of how we feel and how we care about each other and really moving America forward toward the ideal of our Nation. And that is a nation without barriers to anyone, a nation of opportunity for all. Mr. President, I speak of Bobby Silverstein, who later this month will leave the Senate to teach and establish a center for the study and advancement of disability policy at George Washington University. For the past decade, Bobby has been my chief counsel and staff director of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy. During this time, he has been the behind-the-scenes architect of legislation that has truly revolutionized our Nation's policy towards its citizens with disabilities and expanded opportunities for the more than 49 million Americans with disabilities and their families. There is simply not a more knowledgeable, skillful, accomplished and respected person in the field of disability policy in our entire Nation. Bobby Silverstein played a significant role in crafting the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. Before the ADA, discrimination on the basis of disability was wrong, but it was not illegal. Bobby helped me fashion a coalition of grassroots and Washington-based advocacy groups and demonstrated the significant political strength of this unity. Through this coalition, every Member of Congress was educated that disability is a natural part of the human experience, that discrimination on the basis of disability can be tolerated no longer, and that people with disabilities must be judged on what they can do, not on the basis of myths, stereotypes or fears. His mastery of the issues, unrivaled negotiating skills, patience, and excellent working relationships with those in the disability community, the business community, the Congress, and the White House enabled what many have called the emancipation proclamation for people with disabilities--the Americans With Disabilities Act. Under Bobby's behind-the-scenes leadership, public policy for infants, children, and adults with disabilities and their families has been strengthened and expanded in every aspect of life: education, employment, civil rights, housing, income maintenance, health, transportation, telecommunications, and recreation. In addition to the ADA, he was my chief aide responsible for securing passing of legislation establishing the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders at the National Institutes of Health. This Institute has contributed significantly to the knowledge of deafness, and has led to improvements in the lives of millions of Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, including senior citizens. Bobby also shaped legislation to reauthorize the Rehabilitation Act, which supports essential job training, employment, and independent living opportunities for thousands of adults with disabilities. On October 16, 1990, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act became law and opened up the information available on television to the millions of individuals who can benefit from captioned television, including deaf individuals and those children and adults who are learning English. Prior to this time, people who were deaf, like my brother Frank, had to have a great big box that they set on top of their television set that would receive the signal and decode it for that television. Those units cost, if I am not mistaken, in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred dollars. But as my brother said to me one time, that's fine when I'm home watching television; I can get the news and the weather and other information I need through my decoder on my television. But what about when I travel and I stop at a motel or hotel and I want to find out what the weather is going to be, or I want to listen to the news? I can't take that box with me. So, beginning in 1988, 1989, we began having hearings on the possibility of mandating every television set sold in America have a little chip put in it so that every television could decode the signal for closed captioning. I remember the hearings. The companies came in and said, ``Oh, no, this was going to cost too much money.'' Bobby wasn't satisfied. He went to the manufacturers of the chips, asked how much it would cost to produce the chips, and if every television set had them in it how much would it cost. And it came down to mere pennies. So, armed with that information, we were able to get that information to our committee, to Members of the Senate and the House. The bill passed and, as I said, was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 1990. So, every time when you turn on that television and a phone call comes in and you want to watch what is going on but you want to turn the sound down so you punch that button on your remote and the captions come up so you can follow the news and still answer that phone call, think of Bobby Silverstein. He is the one who made it happen. It was a great law and one that has just helped millions of Americans, including people like me who do not suffer from deafness, for just the very kind of purpose I just mentioned. Bobby also championed the Assistive Technology for Individuals With Disabilities Act, protection and advocacy legislation for individuals with mental illness, the Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and landmark family support legislation. Most recently, Bobby was the lead Democratic staffer for the negotiations that led to the bipartisan enactment of Public Law 105-17, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--known as IDEA--Amendments of 1997. This passed this year. IDEA guarantees a free, appropriate public education for more than 6 million children with disabilities. Bobby came to the Senate after several years working for Congressman Pat Williams of Montana in the House of Representatives, where his skills resulted in landmark legislation that established early intervention and preschool opportunities for very young children with disabilities--what we now call part H. These two programs have enabled hundreds of thousands of children to obtain the services and support they need to live with their families and develop to their potential. In addition to his impressive legislative achievements, Bobby has extensive experience working in Federal agencies and the private sector. He has drafted policy interpretations for the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare on issues related to persons with disabilities under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; race and national origin issues under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and gender issues under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In private practice, he trained professionals on the legal framework of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as serving as legal counsel for parents of children with disabilities in cases relating to securing a free appropriate public education for their children. Bobby Silverstein has won not only my unquestioned respect and deep admiration, but that of Republican and Democratic Senate and House Members, leaders of the disability community, the business community and grassroots activists. His knowledge of the issues and his intellectual rigor and honesty are recognized by everyone with whom he's worked. If Bobby Silverstein says something or is involved with putting forward a point of view, everyone knows that he has come to that position after meticulous study and careful, objective and reasoned analysis. Bobby has taught us all the importance of working together to achieve a common goal. He was able to achieve consensus among parties with strongly held competing views. The great respect he commands from those across the political spectrum is rare and is clearly a tribute to his abilities and tireless dedication to good research and sound analysis. It is this widespread trust and respect for Bobby and his work that has made much of the legislation we've enacted possible. Mr. President, I, along with every American, owe a great debt to Bobby Silverstein. In all my years in public service, I have not encountered a more dedicated, caring and good-hearted person. He exemplifies all that is good about public service. He is truly among the best and the brightest individuals in the field of public policy. In the field of disability policy, he has no equal. Mr. President, as you know and as I know and so many people know, as we pass legislation here, it gets our name on it. We are the sponsor of the bill. When it is enacted into law, it is our name that is on it. So often we know it is dedicated staff that really do the work. I said so many times that most of the legislation that we pass dealing with people with disabilities, if it were not for Bobby Silverstein, it never, ever would have happened. So, in that way his mark will remain for a long, long time, not only here in the Senate but all across America. I will yield to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have the distinct pleasure of having a visitor on the floor of the Senate today, the Honorable Mr. Evgeney S. Savchenko, who is a Senator in the Russian Senate. He is also the chairman of the agriculture committee, the Committee of the Council of Federation for the Agrarian Policy. In other words, it is the Senate Agriculture Committee for the entire Russian Federation. We are delighted to have Mr. Savchenko here. He also holds another position, Mr. President. He is Governor of the Belgorod region of the Russian Federation. I thought the occupant of the chair might be delighted to know that in Russia, when you are elected a Governor of a region or Governor of a state, you automatically become a senator. So, therefore, you can fulfill both positions at the same time. I know the occupant of the chair, in his former life, was the chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives. So I know that the occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, would have a lot to discuss, I am sure, in terms of agriculture with Mr. Savchenko who is the chairman of the agriculture committee of the Russian Federation. I am delighted to have him here and present on the Senate floor today. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed, however, that an essential element was not included. A major goal of FDA reform was to include access to medical innovations without compromising public safety. I have an amendment, amendment No. 1137, which speaks to that. I would like to call up that amendment at this time and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Are we not voting at 10 o'clock?