Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. And we had the juvenile justice bill that included the school safety provision, the child safety gun locks and included a fix to close the gunshow loophole. Why are they only willing to vote on this important legislation after the election? We have been denied--I don't want to say the Senator from Minnesota and I have been denied; the people of this country have been denied the right to have their Senators come on this floor and vote on these issues, denied because the majority leader won't bring it up. That is why they keep putting these conference committee bills together. They now want to put together the Commerce-State-Justice bill. I wanted to offer an amendment to restore funding to the Byrne grants for local law enforcement. The Byrne grant is $100 million short from last year's funding level. But I'm not allowed to do that because they want to skip the process and attach to another bill. The VA-HUD and Transportation--again, we haven't voted on VA and HUD. Do you want to know why? Because we want to do something about veterans' health benefits. They want to vote on that after the election, too. They don't want the veterans of this country to know exactly how they vote on veterans' health benefits, I say to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. We ought to think about some way. Thinking about ``lame duck,'' I don't know where that term ever came from. I have to look it up. I am sure there is some history around here about what a lame duck session means, where that name came from. But it seems to me that a lame duck is a sick duck by definition. We don't need a sick duck around here doing the people's business. We don't need a lame duck session around here to be taking these tough votes. We ought to be standing up and doing it right now, not waiting for a sick duck to do it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota for bringing this up, and for his earlier statement on the plight of our small rural hospitals and relief for them. He was talking about the smaller hospitals, but it is really the people in our small towns and communities who need the relief. I thank him for bringing that up. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I have been on it now for 15 years. I am ranking member on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee I also serve on a number of others--Agriculture, Foreign Operations, and others. I was disturbed, I say to my friend, to read in Congress Daily this morning that Senate Majority Leader Lott said our failure to pass these two bills yesterday ``increases the possibility of a lame duck session after the November elections.'' He told reporters: I always thought that was a possibility anyway. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Stevens told reporters: In my opinion, now we are ready for a postelection session. We just don't have time to get 11 bills through in 9 days. I say to my friend from Minnesota, we have been here for 9 months, haven't we? What have we been doing? What has happened to the 9 months? We've done nothing. Eleven out of thirteen appropriations bills have not been passed--11. Here is what's going on: The Republicans in charge don't want to vote on a Patients' Bill of Rights. They don't want to vote on it. They don't want to vote on prescription drugs for the elderly. They don't want to vote on increasing the minimum wage. What do they want to do? Put it off until after the election, have a lame duck session. I don't understand how this complies with what our responsibilities are, what the people elected us for, what we get paid to do around here. That is, to enact legislation, to take the tough votes. They don't want to do that. They want to put it off until after the election, for a lame duck session. What kind of sense does that make? What kind of a statement does that make to the people of this country? Nine months we have been here. This morning we are doing nothing. The Chamber is empty. Yet we could be bringing these bills on the floor right now. We are doing nothing around here. I ask my friend from Minnesota, who gains the most from the lame duck session? Who gains the most by not having the votes now, but putting them off until after the election? HMOs, the gun lobby, the big drug companies. I bet they are just as happy as they can be after reading this morning that a lame duck session is likely because they know they can come in and control a lame duck. I meant to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Minnesota, but I am so disturbed by this, I think this needs a complete airing.

Mr. HARKIN. It is not something they need help with 10 years from now. They need it now. That is why we need to bring that legislation out here and vote on prescription drugs, helping those people out. But we are precluded from doing so. I am hopeful perhaps--maybe we ought to start, I say to my friend from Minnesota, maybe we ought to start asking unanimous consent to bring some of these bills out here. Let's bring them up. Let's see if the majority party will object to bringing up the bills on prescription drugs, on the juvenile justice bill, on minimum wage, Patients' Bill of Rights, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Let's spend the next 9 days or whatever we have working on some of this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand another disturbing event has happened this morning. I am informed that the Senate Judiciary Committee has met this morning and has refused to report out any more judges--refused to do so; just stopped. Again, this flies in the face of what our responsibilities are supposed to be around here. If someone doesn't like a person, or they don't think they are qualified--I should not say ``doesn't like''--if they don't think they are qualified to assume a judgeship, let them vote against that person. But that doesn't give them a reason to hold someone up in committee. I am speaking specifically of my Iowa constituent, Bonnie Campbell, former attorney general with the State of Iowa who is now pending in the Judiciary Committee for a vacancy on the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. HARKIN. Exactly; the Senator is exactly correct. Bonnie Campbell has, for the last 4 years, directed the Office of Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice. I can't find one person on either side of the aisle who says she hasn't done a superb job. She has received accolades from all over this country about guiding and directing that office. She is widely supported by the American Bar Association, by people on both sides of the aisle, the party in her home State of Iowa who know the kind of outstanding person she is, how bright she is, how capable she is, what a great job she did as attorney general in the State of Iowa, and now in the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. People on both sides of the aisle support her nomination, and yet the Senate Judiciary Committee refuses to report her out of committee. She has had her hearing. That has all been taken care of. All the paperwork is done. She has answered all the questions. I say to the Judiciary Committee: Report her nomination out. If for some reason you think she is unqualified--I cannot imagine why--then you can cast your vote, but at least let's bring the nominee to the floor. There are 22 vacancies on the appeals court. That is nearly half the emergency vacancies in the Federal court system. With the growing number of vacancies in the Federal courts, these positions should be filled as soon as possible with qualified people. Yet the Judiciary Committee refuses to move. Ms. Campbell received a hearing this summer. She would serve this position on the Eighth Circuit with honor, fairness, and distinction. She has the solid support from me and my Iowa colleague, Senator Grassley. Her nomination should be sent to the Senate floor. Bonnie Campbell has had a long history in law, starting in 1984 with her private practice in Des Moines where she worked on cases involving medical malpractice, employment discrimination, personal injury, real estate, family law--a broadly based legal practice. She was then elected attorney general of Iowa in 1990, the first woman to hold that office in our State. She managed an office of 200 people, including 120 attorneys, again, handling a wide variety of criminal and civil matters for State agencies and officers. As attorney general, she gained high marks from all ends of the political spectrum as someone who was committed to enforcing the law, reducing crime, and protecting our consumers. In 1995, she was appointed director of the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. In that position, she has played a critical role in the implementation of the violence against women provisions of the 1994 Crime Act. Again, she has won the respect from a wide range of interests with different points of views on this issue. She has been and is today responsible for the overall coordination and agenda of the Department of Justice efforts to combat violence against women. I have known Bonnie Campbell for many years. She is a person of unquestioned integrity, keen intellect, and outstanding judgment. She has a great sense of fairness and evenhandedness. These qualities and her significant experience make her an ideal candidate for this circuit court position. Her nomination has been strongly supported by many of her colleagues, including the present Iowa attorney general, the president of the Iowa State Police Association and, of course, the American Bar Association. Finally, we need a judicial system that reflects the diversity of this Nation. We need more women and people of color on the bench. Only 20 percent of all federal judge position in the country are filled by women, according to the Justice Department. We have a backlog of judicial vacancies. It is only fair to move them, and we ought to move all of them out, especially Bonnie Campbell. She has had her hearing. Her nomination is sitting in the Judiciary Committee. If the reports I just heard are correct, the Judiciary Committee is stonewalling, refusing to move her name out to the floor of the Senate. As I said earlier, this is another indication of how the leadership in this Senate is shirking its responsibilities to the people of this country--to put it off, delay, stonewall, don't do anything--when we have a crying need to fill these vacancies. I am very dismayed. I had talked with the majority leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and others about this. And, Senator Grassley and I had remained hopeful that her name would be reported out so the Senate could act on it, but it seems we have been led astray, that it is the intention of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to lock up this nomination and not report out Bonnie Campbell. The women of this country ought to know that. The women of this country ought to know that a uniquely qualified, eminently qualified individual to take a vacant position on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is being denied by the Judiciary Committee her right to have a vote. Is that what the Judiciary Committee is telling the women of this country--that they need to take a back seat, that they will not act on these judicial nominees if you are a woman, qualified as Bonnie Campbell is? I am very upset about this. I had in good faith been reluctant to exercise my rights as a Senator to in any way inhibit or do anything that would stop the flow of legislation or anything on the Senate floor because I had, I guess mistakenly, been of the opinion, or at least advised, if we just waited a due length of time, Bonnie Campbell's name would be reported out. Again, I think I was obviously mistaken, that my faith--my good faith--was not responded to in kind. This is not right. It is not right to treat a person like this. It is not right to block someone who has had their hearing and is widely supported on both sides of the aisle. It might be a different story if there were a lot of controversy about Bonnie Campbell, but there is none. As I said, Senator Grassley, a conservative Republican, is openly supporting her. Republicans in my State have been supportive of her getting on the Eighth Circuit. This is, I think, a black mark on the operations of the Senate, another indication of how the leadership of this Senate refuses to do the people's business, to let things come out on the floor so we can vote up or down. Bonnie Campbell is being denied her right, I believe, as a citizen of this country to have her nomination acted upon by the full Senate, and it is a bad mark on the Senate. I am hopeful the Judiciary Committee will reconsider its action-- rather, its inaction. The Judiciary Committee can meet tomorrow, they can meet Monday, they can meet any day the chairman wants them to meet and report out this nominee. I was under the impression that was going to happen today, but obviously I had the wrong impression of what the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to do. I urge the chairman to convene the Judiciary Committee and report Bonnie Campbell's name out before this session is over. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her graciousness in yielding me this time. (The remarks of Mr. Harkin are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. HARKIN. How much time is there?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I still want to understand the parliamentary situation confronting the Senate right now. We are on the conference report on Treasury-Postal appropriations and legislative branch appropriations; is that not correct?

Mr. HARKIN. There has been a unanimous consent entered into that set a time limit on this bill and the number of speakers, and their time is also set.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the floor situation right now? Is the floor open?

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry: What is the time? I am sorry.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just voted on one of the most significant and controversial bills of this Congress. I would like to take this opportunity to share my views on the issues involved and explain the process I went through in making my decision on how to vote on providing normal trade relations status to China. I thought about this matter a great deal and examined the issues very carefully. I listened to the arguments made by my colleagues in this Chamber and to the intense public debate over the past months. Just this last month, along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, I visited China. It was the first time I had been back since 1981. We were able to gain some valuable insights into the questions before us. Having listened to the debate on China PNTR, especially in the media, one may have gotten the idea that this is a clear-cut question. If you listened to the proponents, you would think PNTR is a magic elixir for the American economy. If you listened to the opponents, you would think PNTR spells utter disaster. After thoroughly looking into this matter, I concluded the claims of both sides were exaggerated. Passing PNTR was not a slam-dunk or a no- brainer, but neither was it a sellout or a surrender on the critical problems we face with China. It was a matter of judging how the scales tipped: not which side was absolutely correct but which of the alternatives seemed, on balance, the best course to take. This was not an easy decision for me. However, I believe the balance did tip, although not overwhelmingly, in favor of passing this legislation granting China normal trade relations status. I would like to discuss briefly what the vote was really about and why I voted for PNTR. We had a good deal of discussion over the past several days on the details and implications of this legislation and on the agreement between the United States and China regarding China joining the WTO. There is no need for me to spend any time going over that again. It is important, though, to be clear on what the vote was really about. The vote on PNTR was not about whether China is going to join the WTO; China will. Nothing Congress can say, one way or the other, will make one bit of difference. This vote on PNTR was really about whether the United States will benefit from the WTO's trade rules and enforcement procedures which hold China accountable to negotiated trade agreements. If we did not grant PNTR to China, other nations, our competitors, would be able to take advantage of WTO trade rules and enforcement procedures but we would not. Why is that so? Because the WTO rules state that if we want the WTO to help us enforce fair trade rules, then we cannot treat one WTO member differently from another. We have to provide China the same continuous normal trade status we provide other WTO members. We cannot single out China for an annual review of normal trade status and still hold China to WTO rules and enforcement. So that is what this debate really boiled down to--whether we should continue our annual review of normal trade relations with China or grant permanent normal trade relations; that is, would we gain more from a new trade relationship with China than we would lose by ending our annual review? I firmly believe that the more we can do to bring China's behavior under the rule of law, the better off we are, the better off the Chinese people will be, and the better off the rest of the world will be. That includes our ability to use the WTO to settle trade disputes involving China. Now, to be sure, we have had frustrations in the WTO dispute settlement process. It is far from perfect. But overall it is in our best interests to have a multilateral means to settle trade disputes with China according to the rule of law instead of trying to go it alone. That approach clearly has not been effective. U.S. trade negotiators did obtain substantial concessions from China in exchange for WTO membership. These concessions promise to lower tariffs, reduce trade barriers, and create new opportunities for selling U.S. goods and services in China. At the same time, the United States does not have to provide any new access to our markets. So the agreement should benefit U.S. workers, farmers, businesses, and our economy in general. But let's be realistic. The November 1999 agreement is far from overwhelmingly. It only requires China to go part of the way toward really opening up its borders and its markets. As my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has repeatedly pointed out, even under the agreement, China's markets will be far less open than ours. For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, the average U.S. tariff on all goods coming into the United States from China is 4.2 percent. That is the average U.S. tariff on all goods coming from China to the United States --4.2 percent. But after this agreement goes into effect, China's average tariff on U.S. industrial goods will be 9.4 percent, over twice as much. For agricultural products, China will only reduce its tariffs from an average of 22 percent to 17 percent. U.S. agricultural tariffs are only 6 percent on average, one-third those of China. Or take automobiles. The U.S. tariff on autos is 2.5 percent. Under this agreement, China will have a 25-percent tariff on U.S. autos--10 times higher than ours. I realize tariff rates are not the whole story and that China agreed to substantial opening of its markets. However, I am skeptical that our negotiators obtained as much as they could have. The United States had a lot of leverage in these negotiations. China needs our consent to join the WTO. And China had a lot at stake. The United States is the world's largest economy. We import nearly $100 billion from China. We run over an $80 billion trade deficit with China. They need access to our market. Our negotiators should have used our leverage and China's needs to get a better deal on the core trade issues and on other issues involving human rights, workers' rights, and the environment. That our negotiators did not get better tariff reductions and better agreements on worker and human rights I believe is a deeply regrettable missed opportunity. I believe our negotiators were simply in too much of a rush to get this deal done rather than address those core issues. In particular, let's be realistic about the benefits of PNTR for American agriculture. Some of the rhetoric I have heard regarding agriculture is wildly optimistic. We have heard that U.S. farmers will soon be feeding over a billion Chinese--a virtually unlimited market. The truth is, these claims are overstated. Farmers are ill served by the myth that China is a boon market just waiting to buy up large quantities of farm commodities and food products. China is strongly determined to remain largely self- sufficient in food production, and it is adopting technology and following policies to meet that objective. For example, I visited a hog farm in China in 1981, and I visited one again last month. In 1981, the hogs and their management did not even compare to those here in America. The changes I saw this August were dramatic. The hogs I saw in August were every bit as lean as ours. Their sows are having litters of 12 to 14 pigs. They are saving 90 percent of them. Their cost of production is low because wages are low. And the Government owns all the land. I discussed the potential for agricultural trade with the Vice Minister of Agriculture and other Chinese officials. They made it clear they do not expect to buy much corn or pork from the United States. In fact, they are planning to increase their exports of corn. They exported corn last year. But they did believe there would be somewhat of an increasing market in China for U.S. beef and citrus as well as some pork organ meats and similar such products. Certainly there will be opportunities for U.S. farmers and U.S. food and agribusiness companies, but, again, we have to be realistic. While I strongly believe we should sell as much food to China as we can, it is irresponsible to give farmers false hope that China is going to reverse the current depression in commodity prices or bail out the failed Freedom to Farm policy. More than irresponsible, it is just plain wrong. That isn't just my own opinion. In Doane's Agricultural Report in August, Dr. Robert Wisner, a professor of agriculture economics at Iowa State University, who spent 3\1/2\ weeks in China in June assessed the prospects for food and agricultural trade with China. He wrote: For the longer term we can be cautiously optimistic about U.S. soybean and soybean product exports to China. But optimism about U.S. corn, wheat and livestock product exports should be more tempered. * * * * * While the jury is still out on the question Who will feed China? the Chinese answer is, ``China will feed China!'' I will add, in fact, they already do. I now want to discuss the importance of human rights in our consideration of PNTR. As I see it, a key issue in PNTR is whether in relinquishing our annual review, the U.S. will lose important leverage that could be used to change China's behavior on human rights, workers rights, and child labor. Let us first be honest about this. China has a long way to go on religious freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of expression and association, political rights and the rights of workers. The China section of the U.S. State Department's annual report on human rights for this year and for several years running are absolutely appalling. But I don't have to rely on that report. As I said, I visited China last month. True, the human rights situation in many parts of China is not as bad as when I first visited in 1981. I could see some improvements, especially in the large cities. But the fact is, the state of human rights in China is still unacceptable. While in Hong Kong, we learned of a lawyer who was arrested and thrown in jail. His offense: He had set up a small table outside a factory to advise workers of their rights under Chinese law. To the best of my knowledge, he is still languishing in prison today. There is also the case of the young man, Ngawang Choepel, who studied music in the U.S. at Middlebury College in Vermont. He was arrested by the Chinese authorities several years ago while studying music in Tibet and charged with espionage and counterrevolutionary sedition. I was told this young man was convicted of spying for the Dalai Lama. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison. I responded to the Chinese that this was a ridiculous charge. But even if it were true, I asked them, how many tanks does the Dalai Lama have; how many troops does he command; how many ships does he own? To me, this was a strong indication of the weak foundation upon which the Chinese political system rests. We also know that forced labor and prison labor still exist in China. I had been told by both Chinese and U.S. Government officials that there are no serious child labor problems in China. But now, after meeting with reputable worker and human rights organizations in Hong Kong, I know there are certainly serious child labor problems inside China. Estimates indicate China has from 10 to 40 million child laborers. When we left Shanghai and went to Hong Kong, the very next day after we were told by both U.S. authorities and Chinese authorities that child labor was not a very serious problem, this was the headline in the Sunday Morning Post, August 27, 2000, Hong Kong: ``Children Toil in Sweatshop.'' This was in an area north of Hong Kong, mainland China, where kids as young as 12 years old were working making toys. This is again a part of the article: ``Childhood Lost to Hard Labor.'' Also from the article: Lax age checks open door to underage workers at Shenzhen factory producing toys for fast food chain. They were producing toys for a company and that company was selling its toys to McDonald's. McDonald's gives these toys away, when you buy a Happy Meal for your kids. It is the kids who are making the toys. Yet we are told that there are no serious child labor problems in China. Here was photographic proof, reporting proof that only a few miles across the border from Hong Kong, we had child laborers toiling to make these toys, working 16 hours a day and more. This is a quotation from the story: The youngsters admit they lie about their ages to get jobs in the factory, where workers estimate up to 20 percent of the employees are under the legal age of 16. But they say only rudimentary checks are done on their ID cards by the factory to make sure they are old enough to work. Asia Monitor Resource Centre, a labor monitoring body, said it was common for people to use fake ID cards to get work. Child labor is a common problem in China. It exists in rural small farms and big factories run by transnational enterprises. Again, we do have the problem of child labor and prison labor, forced labor in China. So, clearly, there are serious human rights problems in China that cannot be denied or swept under the rug. But they raise the questions: What are the best ways to address those problems and to bring about real progress on human rights in China? And how should human rights considerations affect our decision on PNTR? Before I go into these questions, I will take a moment to emphasize my long and strong commitment to human rights. My record speaks for itself. I have been working on human rights issues since I first took office in the House of Representatives 25 years ago and as a private citizen before then. In fact, the first legislation I authored in the House in 1975 resulted in the enactment of section 116(d) prohibiting U.S. foreign assistance to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. I have worked to end child labor and prison labor and religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Haiti, Central America, Chile, East Timor, India, and other nations. I have worked very hard to free political prisoners and to end political violence. What have I learned from all these years? Frankly, I have learned there is no standard cut-and-dried approach when it comes to advancing human rights. Of course, there are established minimum standards for human rights, as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which China has signed. I am not talking about weakening those standards, never. But there is no set formula for achieving observance of the standards. We must tailor our methods to the particular situation and the particular society. In the case of China, I am convinced that granting PNTR will not hinder our efforts to improve human rights there. I believe, in fact, it will actually help us in that endeavor. Some have claimed that passing PNTR will cause us to lose our leverage on human rights. The simple fact is, we have never effectively used the annual trade status review to influence human rights in China, and it is highly unlikely we would do so in the future. Annual renewal of normal trade status has become almost perfunctory. Even in the wake of Tiananmen Square, President Bush renewed China's normal trade status and Congress did not reverse that decision. As I said, I believe passing PNTR and creating a U.S.-China relationship in the WTO should actually help to improve human rights in China. How much? It is far too early to tell. However, based on my examination of the issues and my experience in China, I concluded that the best way to move China forward is to be engaged with China. And in order to be fully engaged with China, we had to grant PNTR. The simple fact is, we cannot simply wall China off. When I visited the Great Wall in China this summer, it reminded me how impossible such an effort would be. China could not be walled off centuries ago, and it cannot be walled off today. Trade and economic ties alone, however, will never magically transform China's human rights policies. But I can tell you, there is a big crack in China's great wall against human rights reform. One day before long, that wall, too, will come down. Look at recent developments in China. There has been a huge influx of new products and services, but more importantly, the people of China are being exposed to new ideas and new influences regarding human rights, political rights, and religious freedom. Now we have the Internet. I can say one thing I learned in China. The Chinese Government may be able to censor TV and to censor the radio and the newspapers, but no matter how hard they try, they will not be able to control or censor the Internet. Nearly every single person Senator Lautenberg and I talked with in China told us that we should support PNTR. We even met with dissidents and human rights activists in Hong Kong, people under no coercion from the Chinese Government, who had fled China, who can't even go back to China, who urged us to support PNTR. They said that anything that helps to open up China, that brings in people and ideas, is helpful. Throughout my over 25 years in working on human rights, I have seen that they are right. We must expose countries to the influence of the rest of the world if we want them to change their policy on human rights. I noticed the editorial in the Washington Post this morning about the ``Catholic `Criminals' in China.'' I am sure it has been printed in the Record earlier today. It talked about an 81-year-old Catholic bishop who had been thrown in jail--again. We didn't meet with this bishop. We tried, but we could not. We met with Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian, the Bishop of Shanghai, an 85-year-old Catholic bishop who spent 27 years of his life in Chinese prisons. He is a trained Jesuit. He has been to America more than once, to Europe several times, and while he would not politically comment on PNTR, he told us in no uncertain terms that exposure to the rest of the world would be a positive thing for religious freedom in China. I believe he is right. We must expose countries to the influence of the rest of the world if we want them to change. I also think this is true of relations with Cuba. Our policy against Cuba, trying unilaterally to isolate it, has been counterproductive. If we want Fidel Castro to change, we have to open the doors and let people trade and visit and move around freely. Our official policy is the best thing Castro has going for him. So I conclude that PNTR will help move China toward a greater respect for human rights because it will open them up to new ideas and influences. Even though I concluded that China PNTR offers opportunities for businesses, workers, and the economy, many people--myself included-- have legitimate concerns about the impact of this bill on America's working men and women. Many labor leaders were worried that passing PNTR would cause job shifts to China. This is a legitimate concern. It is true that for a number of years jobs have been shifting to countries--including China--that pay lower wages and tolerate poor working conditions, even abuses of worker rights. But I cannot see how denying China PNTR would have done anything to prevent jobs from moving to other countries. Some 20 years of annual reviews of China's trade status have done nothing to reverse this trend. Again, as I said, PNTR will not make the United States any more open than we have been in the past to imported products. Instead of focusing so much just on the issue of extending PNTR to China, we have to take a broader focus and chart a new, bold course to counter the adverse effects of globalization. We first need to look in our own back yard, examine our own laws-- especially tax laws--to see whether they discourage businesses from staying and investing in American workers. We have to eliminate any tax provisions that encourage companies to move jobs and production overseas. We also should fully utilize U.S. laws that classify unfair labor practices as unfair trade practices, which, of course, they are. Section 301 of our trade law treats the systematic denial of internationally recognized worker rights as an actionable, unreasonable, and unfair trade practice. No case has yet been brought under this provision of section 301. So we do not know exactly how it may apply. But it is time for the United States to enforce this law to the maximum extent possible. I am encouraged by the statements of Vice President Al Gore. I will quote from a statement he made at an APEC business summit in Malaysia: And as we open the doors to global trade wider than ever before, let us build a trading system that lifts the fortunes of more and more people. Let us include strong protections for workers, for health and safety, for a clean environment. For at its heart, global commerce is about strengthening our shared global values. It is about building stronger families and stronger communities, through strong and steady growth around the world. On July 9 of last year, before the Washington Council on International Trade, Vice President Gore said: We also must ensure that when it comes to trade, labor rights and environmental protection are not second-class issues any longer. He has also said: I will insist upon and use authority in those agreements to enforce workers rights, human rights and environmental protections. We need to make the global economy work for all--and that means fighting to make sure that trade agreements contain provisions that will protect the environment and labor standards as well as open market in other countries. We need to use trade to up standards around the world and not drag down standards here at home. In future trade negotiations, future trade agreements, labor rights, human rights, and environmental protections must be an integral part of those agreements. There is no good reason why the WTO doesn't currently protect the rights of workers. Some will argue that labor rights are not trade related. I say nonsense. Intellectual property isn't directly related to trade, but the WTO has strong rules protecting intellectual property. Why should protecting intellectual property be any more important than protecting children against child labor or guaranteeing workers the right to organize? I don't understand why the WTO protects CDs but not child workers. The WTO protects the intellectual property because it is produced by human effort and it has value. If someone abuses intellectual property rights, that decreases or destroys the value of the intellectual property. That is why the WTO protects it. But what about workers? Work is also produced by human effort and it has value. But let's say an American worker loses a job because that job has been shifted to a country where worker protections don't exist, wages are a few cents an hour, and there is rampant forced labor and child labor. Hasn't the value of that worker's labor been lessened or destroyed in the exactly same way as intellectual property is devalued when it is abused? What is the difference between stealing the products of someone's creativity and stealing the fruits of someone's labor? There is none. Globalization is the face of the 21st century. We must keep up the pressure to include enforceable labor rights in future trade agreements and particularly in new WTO rules. As the world's leading industrialized Nation, the United States has the responsibility, the authority, and the influence to lead this effort. Again, I firmly believe we need a strong course of action to help American workers in the face of globalization. However, that was not what this bill was about. This bill was just about PNTR for China. It doesn't remove any protections for American workers or further open the United States to imports. And it should, as far as I can tell, provide some new economic opportunities for American workers. So, on balance, I believe that passing this bill was the right choice for the United States and China. But no one should be under the illusion that PNTR and China's joining the WTO will automatically open up China's markets or its society. In a sense, passing PNTR is just the beginning of a long, hard journey for the United States. Our work to bring China into the WTO and to pass PNTR won't amount to a hill of beans if China is not held to its commitments. We simply cannot afford to drop the ball by failing to stand up and vigorously enforce WTO rules and the agreements China has made. Joining the WTO is also the beginning of a long, hard journey for China. We must never let up in the fight to include enforceable labor rights and environmental protections in future trade agreements. And in the face of rapid globalization, it is critical that we reform U.S. labor and tax laws so America's working men and women don't have the deck stacked against them. As I said, trade alone is not enough to improve human rights in China or elsewhere. Just last month, I stood in Tiananmen Square, and right off of there is a big McDonald's, a symbol of Western economic influence in China. However, right near the McDonald's on Tiananmen Square, members of the Falun Gong gather each morning to do their exercises and meditation. They are not disturbing the peace, being violent; they are simply meditating and doing their exercises right in the shadow of McDonald's. Like clockwork, every morning, the police come by and arrest them. So adding more McDonald's restaurants and ensuring freer trade doesn't mean China will suddenly respect individual rights. We have to keep up the fight for human rights--and that includes the rights of workers--using all the tools available to us. When Senator Lautenberg and I were in China last month we raised the issue of prison labor at every level. We hammered away at that issue, and repeatedly asked to visit and inspect a prison labor facility. At first we ran into a brick wall, but eventually we had a breakthrough. Chinese officers still refused to allow us to visit a prison labor site ourselves, but they agreed to renew their compliance with the 1992 and 1994 agreements against sending products of prison labor to the United States. In fact, we got that assurance from Premier Zhu Rongji himself. I am pleased to report that just a week and a half ago, U.S. Customs agents were able to visit a prison labor site in China. We must also expect and demand that United States companies that do business in China respect human rights and the rights of workers. If I may refer back to this article with the children in the sweatshop making toys to supply MacDonald's, when I got back to Washington, I immediately arranged to meet with MacDonald's executives in my office. They were quick to tell me that they first learned of this child labor scandal when they read about it in the papers, and that the child laborers were not employed by McDonald's, but by a subcontractor of a toy vendor. In fact, McDonald's has a voluntary code of conduct and zero tolerance policy prohibiting child labor and substandard employment practices. McDonald's has since cut off ties with that toy vendor and is responding to this child labor problem. All of this underscores the urgent need to rewrite our trade agreements so that exploitative child labor and other abuses of the rights of workers are considered unfair trade practices and a basis for trade enforcement action in the WTO. In conclusion, Mr. President, I voted for China PNTR, with the full realization that a tremendous amount of work still remains unfinished. That's why, having cast this vote, we must make a commitment to redouble our efforts to include workers' rights and environmental protections in future trade agreements, and strengthen our own laws and tax code to encourage greater investment in our American workers, and in education and job training.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk about an important issue--the critical need for Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act or VAWA. It has strong bipartisan support and it should be passed before the end of this session. I was a proud cosponsor of this bill when it passed in 1994 and I am an original cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. This is a law that has helped hundreds of thousands of women and children in Iowa and across the nation. It has directed millions of federal dollars in grants to local law enforcement, prosecution and victim services. Iowa has received more than $8 million in grants through VAWA. These grants fund the Iowa Domestic Violence Hotline. They help keep the doors open at domestic violence shelters, like the Family Violence Center in Des Moines. VAWA grants to Iowa have provided services to more than 2,000 sexual assault victims just this year. And more than 20,559 Iowa students this year have received information about rape prevention through this federal funding. The numbers show that VAWA is working. A recent Justice report found that intimate partner violence against women decreased by 21 percent from 1993 to 1998. This is strong evidence that state and community efforts are working. But VAWA must be reauthorized to allow these efforts to continue without having to worry that this funding will be lost from year to year. Congress should not turn its back on America's women and children. Reauthorization should be a priority. So, I urge my colleagues and the leadership to pass this legislation this session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment and one that deserves careful consideration and debate by the Senate. Senator Lautenberg and I just returned from China last weekend. I'll have a great deal more to say about our trip and its impact on my thoughts about our relationships with China later. But I do want to speak briefly to our efforts in China as they related to prison labor and directly to this amendment. As my friend and colleague from Minnesota has pointed out, the U.S. and China entered into an official agreement on prison labor in 1992. Its intent is to prevent the importation of goods into our country made by prison labor in China--a practice made illegal here under Section 1307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The agreement is officially titled the ``Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China on Prohibiting Import and Export Trade in Prison Labor Products.'' It was signed on August 7, 1992. Let me read some of the key components. Under the terms of the agreement the United States and China agree to: Promptly investigate companies, enterprises or units suspected of violating relevant regulations and will immediately report results. Upon the request of one Party, meet to exchange information on the enforcement of relevant laws. Will furnish the other Party available evidence and information regarding suspected violations. Promptly arrange and facilitate visits by responsible officials to its respective enterprises or units. In March of 1994 we entered into an accompanying statement of cooperation on the implementation of the MOU. This statement fleshes out the details of how our two governments were to carry out the agreement. This is an important agreement. It aims to assure that U.S. workers aren't forced to compete with hundreds of prison labor factories in China. Factories that are filled at least partially with prisoners whose only crime is seeking democracy or formation of a true labor union. Prisoners who are held in so-called ``re-education facilities'' for up to 3 years without trials. Unfortunateley, China's compliance with this agreement has been dismal. From 1992 to 1997 there were joint inspections, but usually only after great effort on our part and often only after long delays-- not within 60 days of request as required under the MOU. But since 1997 China has stopped all compliance with the agreement. They have denied all requests by our U.S. Customs to inspect prison labor facilities suspected of exporting products to the United States. Let me read a portion of one of the recent letters sent by U.S. Customs to Chinese officials. So when Senator Lautenberg and I went to China, we asked to accompany Chinese officials and our U.S. Customs officials on a visit to one of these 8 sites previously requested by Customs. We raised this at every level. We first raised it prior to our visit with the Chinese Embassy here in Washington. Then we raised it with the Deputy Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, then we raised it with Vice Premier Quian QiChen. We raised our concerns about the failure to abide by the MOU and asked that we be allowed to go along on a visit to see for ourselves that the Tariff Act of 1930 is not being violated. At first we ran into a brick wall. We were simply told ``no.'' Then we were told they misunderstood our request. Then they said it was very complicated and would take more time. Then we had a breakthrough. They refused to let Senator Lautenberg and I go on a visit to one of these facilities, but they have agreed to renew their compliance with the MOU. We got that assurance personally from Premier Zhu Ronji. We got word last Friday--inspections resumed at one site. So the first renewed inspection was completed Friday. Now we all see if the Chinese are serious about complying with this agreement. Their track record clearly does not inspire confidence. That is why I am supporting the Wellstone amendment. It would add to our leverage to ensure long-term compliance with this important agreement. So I urge a vote for this amendment and commend Senator Wellstone for bringing it forward. As I mentioned earlier, I will have a good deal more to say about my trip to China and on the underling PNTR legislation as the debate continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the memoranda of understanding and a letter to Wang Lixian in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the need to move through a number of important judicial nominations. This process has been dragging on for too long. Pending before the Judiciary Committee are dozens of federal appeals court nominations, including that of my Iowa constituent, Bonnie J. Campbell for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. There are 22 vacancies in our federal appeals courts. With the growing number of vacancies in the federal courts, these positions should be filled with qualified individuals as soon as possible. And so I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations. Ms. Campbell, who received a hearing by the Judiciary Committee in June, would serve on the 8th Circuit with honor, fairness, and distinction. Bonnie Campbell has a long and distinguished history in the field of law. She began her career as a private practice lawyer in Des Moines in 1984. She worked on cases involving medical malpractice, employment discrimination, personal injury, real estate, and family law. She was elected as Iowa's Attorney General in 1990--the first woman ever to hold that office in Iowa. During her tenure, she received high praise from both ends of the political spectrum for her outstanding work enforcing the law, reducing crime, and protecting consumers. In 1995, she was appointed as the Director of the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. In that position, she played a critical role in implementing the Violence Against Women provisions of the 1994 Crime Act. Again, she won the respect of individuals with a wide range of views on this issue. She has been, and still remains, responsible for the overall coordination and agenda of the Department of Justice's efforts to combat violence against women. Mr. President, I've known Bonnie Campbell for many years. She is a person of unparalleled integrity, keen intellect, and outstanding judgment. She is fair, level-headed, and even-handed. These qualities, and her significant experience, make her an ideal candidate for this important position. Her nomination has been strongly supported by many of her colleagues, including the current Iowa Attorney General and the President of the Iowa State Police Association. Her nomination has also been approved by the American Bar Association. And Bonnie Campbell has the solid support of both myself and my Iowa colleague, Senator Grassley. Mr. President, I view the Senate's ``advise and consent'' responsibility on judicial nominations in the Senate to be on par with our annual responsibility to move appropriations bills. And, as such, the Senate's schedule between now and adjournment should be adjusted to assure adequate time for their consideration. We have the time if we have the will. Again, Mr. President, we have a backlog of judicial vacancies, and it is only fair to push them through as soon as possible. I urge the leadership and the Committee to move them, including Bonnie Campbell, with all due speed. The American people and the people of Iowa's Eighth Circuit are ill-served by these vacancies.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we have had in the past. Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously, politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a broad variety of different disciplines to have input. I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want to continue with the National Ignition Facility.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so- called NIF. I will use that acronym. The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any nuclear weapons. As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point. Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993. Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts, adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle. I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility-- if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor, you will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super Collider, you would like this program. Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2 billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste. We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money in, we have to complete it. I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time. We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing: Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the money. As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider. Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the time and saving our taxpayers money. We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one. This is directly from the GAO report: DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . . They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good stewardship we reward? We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell the Secretary of Energy. So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure, hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy from the fusion than they put in with the lasers. The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion energy. Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We wasted a lot of money on that project, too. Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program. First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions-- 1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can be remanufactured to original specifications. So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these surveillance activities of our stockpile. The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons will work as intended. In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests. We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design, but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for stockpile stewardship. Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied, ``None whatsoever.'' Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.'' Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF ``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship. Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic or applied sciences. What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear stockpile is safe and is workable. So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the same thing. The administration has requested an additional $135 million for construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135 million from other activities. The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal year 2002, $180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in future years. Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science programs and physics programs in order to get the money to build this project at Lawrence Livermore. Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a statement earlier this year: The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the production plants, by several years. This causes us to question what is a reasonable additional investment in the National Ignition Facility. Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent. Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well, there you have it. If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main purpose of NIF: To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of secondary design. So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so. Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the $74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the National Nuclear Security Administration shall provide for an independent review of the NIF and the Inertia Confinement Review Program. This review shall be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly, the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam lines at the NIF. Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman of the committee for accepting the amendment.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.