Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Midnight tonight. If there is no continuing resolution, then tomorrow the administration could release the remainder of the money that was appropriated last year for this program?

Mr. HARKIN. Let me get this clear from the Senator. If a continuing resolution--that expires today. I do not know what time it expires.

Mr. HARKIN. I share the Senator's concern about this. We do have the opportunity, as the Senator pointed out. Now, again, for my benefit and for others, would the Senator explain it. We forward funded this, $1.3 billion. Obviously that money has already been appropriated.

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator is correct. I think that is what is going to happen out there. So you may say, well, gee, you know, they are not in crisis circumstances; they are getting their fuel, they are paying their bills, but what is happening on the other side of the ledger? This is a crisis situation in my State, and I know it is in Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. I was on the Appropriations Committee. That money has been appropriated. So why is it not going out? If we already appropriated the money, why is it not going out?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] is a watershed agreement that will eliminate an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. Upon ratification, the CWC calls for the complete elimination of all chemical weapons within 10 years. This landmark treaty is perhaps the most comprehensive arms control agreement ever signed. To begin with, the Chemical Weapons Convention requires all signatories to begin destruction of their chemical weapons stockpiles within 1 year of ratification, and to complete this destruction within 10 years. In addition, the CWC prohibits the production, use and distribution of this class of weapons, and provides an intrusive international monitoring organization in order to prevent the development of these weapons. This verification allows not only for the inspection of ``declared'' sites, but also permits international inspectors access to any suspected undeclared facilities. Signatories do not have the right of refusal to deter inspection. Should a member nation request a ``challenge inspection'' of a suspected chemical facility, the nation called into question must permit the inspectors to enter the country within 12 hours. Within another 12 hours, the inspectors must have been allowed entry into the suspected warehouse. It is very unlikely that every trace of the banned chemicals could be eliminated within 24 hours. [[Page S 18299]] In addition to providing broader powers to an international inspection regime, the CWC includes strong punishment to those nations who choose to violate this agreement. The violating nation, as well as nonmember nations, could no longer purchase an entire group of chemicals from member nations. The chemicals which would be banned are necessary for factories to produce products such as pesticides, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. So this measure is not only a ``carrot'' to induce nations to join, but a ``stick'' to ensure their compliance. Obviously, Mr. President, no treaty is 100 percent watertight, but the strength of the international monitoring regime, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, makes the manufacture of chemical weapons difficult to conceal, and the punishment provides a strong deterrent to developing this class of weapons. Among all weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical, and nuclear--chemical weapons are the most plausible and potent threat available to terrorists. These chemical weapons are relatively easy to make, and a dosage that can kill thousands is very easy to conceal. Recent events in Tokyo and Oklahoma City have provided the wake-up call to the international community, showing that the world can no longer slumber in a blanket of false security. From a historical perspective, agreements to curtail chemical weapons use have been largely successful. The best example is the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Even during World War II, the vast majority of nations observed the Geneva Protocol, which banned the first-use of chemical weapons in war. However, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein against Iran and the Iraqi Kurdish population forced the world community to realize the danger of these weapons. The production of chemical weapons by nations facilitates the proliferation of these weapons to state sponsored terrorist groups. The United States must place a high priority on the elimination of this deadly class of weapons. If the United States wishes to retain its position as a world leader, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention with urgency, and persuade other nations to follow our lead. Mr. President, to call attention to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, I would recommend a highly informative article by Robert Wright entitled ``Be Very Afraid'', which appeared in the May 1, 1995 edition of The New Republic. To Quote Mr. Wright: All told, the world's current policy on weapons of mass destruction can be summarized as follows: The more terrible and threatening the weapon, the less we do about it. There has never been a more opportune time to rethink these priorities. * * * A good model for reform exists in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which now awaits ratification after more than a decade of negotiation involving three administrations. The CWC has both kinds of teeth that the NPT lacks: A tough inspection regime and real punishment for violation. I ask that the text of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Additionally, destroying weapons saves taxpayers' money. Just look at the current Senate Defense authorization bill. As my friend from New Mexico pointed out in the report to the Defense Authorization Act, the act ``proposes a nuclear weapons manufacturing complex sized to meet a need of a hedge stockpile far above the active START II stockpile of 3500 weapons.'' The total cost of producing our nuclear weapons to date is about $4 trillion. Compare that with our $5 trillion national debt. In 1995 alone, $12.4 billion was spent to build, operate and maintain strategic nuclear weapons. If we ratify START II we can give taxpayers the double peace dividend of higher security at lower cost. Even if START II were fully implemented, we would have more than 3,000 deployed strategic missiles--500 warheads on missiles in silos, 1,680 warheads on submarine-launched missiles, and 1,320 on airplanes. Furthermore, an additional 4,000 nuclear weapons would remain in our stockpile. Surely, this will be more than enough atomic fire power to counter any conceivable threat to the United States. Mr. President, Russia and other former Soviet Republics are more open than ever before. We have all seen the unprecedented pictures on television of Russian missiles and airplanes being destroyed. This new openness will make START II even more verifiable then START I. With Russian elections this month and our own presidential election season just starting, we must act now to keep the this olive branch from withering. In conclusion, Mr. President, we need to ratify START II quickly. It is not in the national interest to play politics over the ratification of any treaty. Russian President Yeltsin is ill and needs quick American ratification of START II to help get the Russian Parliament to ratify it. We need the security of fewer Russian warheads now. We need to stop spending so much money making our nuclear weapons now. We can use the warheads we have now to defend America. We need to ratify START II now.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Wednesday Senator Bingaman gave an important statement about the necessity to ratify START II quickly, and I would like to add my voice in support of his position. START II will cut the number of the world's nuclear weapons in half, getting rid of nearly 4,000 deployed H-bombs in Russia and about the same number here. An overwhelming number of our citizens favor implementing this treaty, and a large number of elected officials on both sides of the aisle have expressed their support for it. Names and statements of support by Republican leaders were read by my friend from New Mexico, and I will not take time to add to this list now. [[Page S 18298]] Apparently START II is being held hostage in a dispute over the consolidation of our foreign affairs agencies. I hope this is not the case. Even worse, some groups are now calling to add certain conditions for ratifying START II. These conditions have all been discussed in bills that have now passed the Senate, and should not be attached to the ratification of a treaty. The Senate can not change START II, either we ratify it or not. Attaching political conditions on a treaty is a dangerous practice and should be avoided on procedural considerations. Mr. President, START II should be ratified for many reasons. First, START II destroys weapons. This reduces the risk of an accidental launch. Second, every Russian weapon destroyed is a weapon we don't need to defend against. The following table shows the numbers and kinds of ICBMs that can be eliminated under START II. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The table follows:

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Irvin, a legislative fellow in my subcommittee, be permitted privileges of the floor during my statement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. On that fall day two decades ago, we literally changed the world for millions of children with disabilities. At that time, over 1 million children with disabilities in the United States were excluded entirely from the public school system, and more than half of all children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services. On that day, we exclaimed that the days of exclusion, segregation, and denial of education of disabled children are over in this country. On that day we sent a simple, yet powerful message heard around the world: disability is a natural part of a child's experience that in no way diminishes the fundamental right of a disabled child to receive a free and appropriate public education. On that day, we also sent a powerful message that families count and they must be treated as equal partners in the education of their children. On that day we lit a beacon of hope for millions of children with disabilities and their families. Since the enactment of Public Law 94-142, considerable progress has been made in fulfilling the message that was conveyed by the Congress in 1975. Today, 20 years later, every State now ensures a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 18, and most States extend that provision through age 21. Over 5 million children with disabilities are now receiving special education and related services. And all States now provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through age two and their families. Today, the beacon of hope is burning bright. As one parent from Iowa recently told me: Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has kept our family together. Because of IDEA our child is achieving academic success. He is also treated by his nondisabled peers as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident that he will graduate high school prepared to hold down a job and lead an independent life. In May, Danette Crawford, a senior at Urbandale High School in Des Moines testified before the Disability Policy Subcommittee. Danette, who has cerebral palsy, testified that: My grade point average stands at 3.8 and I am enrolled in advanced placement courses. The education I am receiving is preparing me for a real future. Without IDEA, I am convinced I would not be receiving the quality education that Urbandale High School provides me. Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law across the country. The National Council on Disability [NCD] recently conducted 10 regional meetings throughout the Nation regarding progress made in implementing the IDEA over the past 20 years. In its report, NCD stated that ``in all of the 10 regional hearings * * * there were ringing affirmations in support of IDEA and the positive difference it has made in the lives of children and youth with disabilities and their families.'' The report adds that ``all across the country witnesses told of the tremendous power of IDEA to help children with disabilities fulfill their dreams to learn, to grow, and to mature.'' Anniversaries are a time to celebrate; but they are also a time to reflect. So, as we look back on the enactment of IDEA, we must also step back and ask some basic questions: Has the IDEA resulted in full equality of educational opportunity for all children with disabilities? Should we be satisfied with the educational outcomes we are achieving; can we do better? From the four hearings held by the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, it is clear to me that major changes in IDEA are not needed nor wanted. IDEA is as critical today as it was 20 years ago, particularly the due process protections. These provisions level the playing field so that parents can sit down as equal partners in designing an education for their children. The witnesses at these hearings did make clear, however, that we need to fine-tune the law, in order to make sure that children with disabilities are not left out of educational reform efforts that are now underway, and to take what we have learned over the past 20 years and use it to update and improve this critical law. Based on 20 years of experience and research in the education of children with disabilities, we have reinforced our thinking and knowledge about what is needed to make this law work, and we have learned many new things that are important if we are to ensure an equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities: For example, our experience and knowledge over the past 20 years have reaffirmed that the provision of quality education and services to children with disabilities must be based on an individualized assessment of each child's unique needs and abilities; and that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with children who are not disabled and children should be removed from the regular educational environment only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. We have also learned that students with disabilities achieve at significantly higher levels when schools have high expectations--and establish high goals--for these students, ensure their access to the general curriculum--whenever appropriate--and provide them with the necessary services and supports. And there is general agreement that including children with disabilities in general State and district-wide assessments is an effective accountability mechanism and a critical strategy for improving educational results for these children. Our experience over the past 20 years has underscored the fact that parent participation is a crucial component in the education of children with disabilities, and parents should have meaningful opportunities, through appropriate training and other supports, to participate as partners with teachers and other school staff in assisting their children to achieve to high standards. And we also know how critical it is for school administrators to have the tools they need to ensure school environments that are safe and conducive to learning. There is general agreement today at all levels of government that State and local educational agencies must be responsive to the increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that prevails in the Nation's public schools today. Steps must be taken to ensure that the procedures used for referring and evaluating children with disabilities include appropriate safeguards to prevent the over- or under-identification of minority students requiring special education. Services, supports, and other assistance must be provided in a culturally competent manner. And greater efforts must be made to improve post-school results among minority students with disabilities. The basic purposes of Public Law 94-142 must be retained under the proposed reauthorization of IDEA: To assist States and local communities meet their obligation to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the unique needs of these children and enable them to lead productive independent adult lives; to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; and to assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. We also need to expand those purposes to promote the improvement of educational services and results for children with disabilities and early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities--by assisting or supporting systems change initiatives by State educational agencies in partnership with other interested parties, coordinated research and personnel preparation, and coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and [[Page S 17764]] evaluation, and technology development and media services. The progress that has been made over the past 20 years in the education of children with disabilities has been impressive. However, it is clear that significant challenges remain. We must ensure that this crucial law not only remains intact as the centerpiece for ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities, but also that it is strengthened and updated to keep current with the changing times. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to quote Ms. Melanie Seivert of Sibley IA, who is the parent of Susan, a child with Downs Syndrome. She states: Our ultimate goal for Susan is to be educated academically, vocationally, [and] in life-skills and community living so as an adult she can get a job and live her life with a minimum of management from outside help. Through the things IDEA provides * * * we will be able to reach our goals. Does it not make sense to give all children the best education possible? Our children need IDEA for a future. Mr. President, IDEA is the shining light of educational opportunity. And, on this the 20th anniversary of the IDEA, we in the Congress must make sure that the light continues to burn bright. We still have promises to keep. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Record will show that I did not say it was unanimous.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend my colleague from California for her excellent work and diligence in pursuing this important amendment. For the life of me I cannot understand what this is really all about. Late last year and earlier this year a hue and cry went up that Members of the Senate and the House ought to be treated the same as other people in this country. OSHA laws and all of these other things ought to apply to us as well as everyone else so we would know what ordinary people went through. We all voted for that. So we covered the Congress with these laws. I think the people of this country thought that was wise.

Mr. HARKIN. I will ask the Senator, since I am a cosponsor of this, am I of the understanding--this has passed before, has it not? At least twice before it passed in the Senate?

Mr. HARKIN. And in both of those cases the President was not included, was he?

Mr. HARKIN. In other words, our friends on the Republican side said they would not take it unless the President was in it and now we are hearing the argument from the Republican side it is unacceptable because the President is in there, is that right?

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that the Senator from West Virginia did not vote for it, but we may have a difference of opinion on this since I believe the Congress should have been covered by the same laws, just like I think this also should cover us the same way. I find it more than passing strange that when the Government shuts down, as it recently did, that FBI agents, air traffic controllers, even our staff, all of our staff who work here, do not get paid. Most people thought that those who were not essential did not get paid, that the ones that went home did not get paid. I talked to a lot of my colleagues who did not know that those who were essential and went to work every day still did not get paid except for Senators and Members of the House.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I do not know. I cannot answer the Senator's question. I know I want to speak on this. I went to some extent and length to get here to talk on this tonight. I intend to have my say on it. I have the floor, and I intend to speak on it. I do not know how long it is going to take me. It may take me just a little bit, but I am going to have my say on it because I feel very strongly about it. Mr. President, once again the people of this country see Congress being treated differently than other people that work for the Federal Government. You know when you get laid off of a job and the plant closes down, you do not get paid. We have laws here that say when the Government closes down and we do not pass the appropriations bills, it is not a law. It is basically that we do not have any money to pay them. So I really do not know what law the Senator was talking about. When we do not pass the appropriations bills--and that deadline occurs at the end of the fiscal year and we do not have any money to run the Government--for those appropriations bills that have not been passed, those agencies shut down unless we have a continuing resolution. When that runs out, then, of course, there is no money to pay it. Well, there is a law that talks about essential personnel who have to show [[Page S 17598]] up. For the life of me, I still do not understand how you can demand that someone come to work every day and still not pay them. I thought slavery went out of existence 130 some years ago in this country. I tell people this, and they are dumbfounded by it. I say, yes, the Federal Government can order people to come to work every day and not pay them. Imagine that: Order them to come to work and not pay them. But that is exactly what is happening. It is unfair. Quite frankly, I think it is unconstitutional. I do not know if anyone has ever tested it, but I do not think that is constitutional. Certainly, I think it is a violation of civil rights to have someone come to work and say, ``However, you are not being paid for that period for which you work.'' So I think that we ought to cover Congress just as well as we cover other members of the Federal Government. We passed it two or three different times here. It always goes to conference, and then it gets lost. We know what kind of game that is. We passed it, and everyone says, ``Oh, yes, I voted to cover Congress just like everybody else, but something happened in that gray mist of the conference committee.'' Well, I think the Congressional Accountability Act that we passed is a good bill. I know the Senator from West Virginia did not think so. But I think the vast majority of Congress obviously did think so. I think it is time that we cover ourselves the same way as other Federal workers. If there is a shutdown in the Government, and the appropriations bills have not been passed and other Federal workers are not being paid, whether they come to work or not, then I do not think Senators and Congressmen ought to be paid for the same period of time either. It is a basic issue of fairness and equity. You can cloak arguments in constitutionality. I do not want to violate the Constitution. But I think a clear reading of the 27th amendment and the reading of the history of the 27th amendment shows clearly that it was not intended to cover this. It was only intended to cover pay raises enacted by Congress. The Senator from Alaska may have--indeed, I think probably does--a valid point regarding article II of the Constitution. But I do not believe it is a valid point when it comes to the 27th amendment which talks about Members of the Congress. The continuing resolution I know did stipulate that all Federal workers could be paid in the next pay period. So, again, we have this odd system where we had the Government shut down and no one gets paid. They are not paid, but they are paid later. A lot of people get time off but still are going to be paid. We may be facing another shutdown of the Government on December 15. I do not know. I hope not. But we will be in a situation there again where Federal workers could be told to come to work every day and not get paid. When? During the height of the Christmas season when they have their bills to pay and, as I said, earlier, their mortgages to pay, their car payments to make, and Christmas presents to buy. And, yet, we are going to tell them, no, they do not get paid. But that is all right; Senators and Congressmen will get paid. It is, Mr. President, a basic issue of fairness and equity. I congratulate the Senator from California for pursuing this, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I join with her in saying that, if it does not make it on this bill, there will be another one and another one and another one, and we will keep attaching it until finally we get something that must pass. This is an issue we should not let go of because it has to do, as I said, with basic fairness and equity. And we should not be treated any differently than any other Federal worker, I do not care where that Federal worker works, for what agency. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I just want the Record to be clear in response to my friend from Alaska. I do not think the Record will show I was saying it is because the Republicans are now in the majority. That is not the problem at all. I never said that and the Record will show I never said that. Basically, I have said all along this is an issue of basic fairness and equity, and it goes to the heart of whether or not we consider [[Page S 17599]] ourselves some sort of different class of people in this country above everything else, where we can continue to get paid while other Federal workers do not during a period of time when the Government is shut down. People in this country understand that. I do not care who is in the majority, whether Democrats or Republicans. It is not fair and it ought not to be done that way. That is my basic point and I will continue to make that point. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. So there is a difference between the wording of the 27th amendment and article II. The Senator answered my questions.

Mr. HARKIN. That is worded differently than article II of the Constitution because it states in there that the pay of Senators and Representatives, the compensation, shall not be varied during that period of time.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. STEVENS addressed chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Article II of the Constitution says that the President's salary shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected. But amendment 27 is much different. The 27th amendment, we all know why that was adopted, and the language shows that deals with pay raises. Is that not correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am delighted to yield.