Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is perhaps no other form of discrimination that has as direct an impact on the day-to-day lives of workers as wage discrimination. When women aren't paid what they are worth, we all get cheated. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits sex-based discrimination in compensation for doing the same job. However, this statute fails to address other components of the pay equity problem such as job segregation. Current law has not reached far enough to combat wage discrimination when employers routinely pay lower wages to jobs that are dominated by women. More than 30 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women's wages still lag behind their male counterparts' wages. This important issue demands our attention. In the last Congress, I introduced the Fair Pay Act so we could close the wage gap once and for all. I am reintroducing this legislation in the 105th Congress so we can continue to fight for fairness on behalf of working families. The Fair Pay Act is designed to pick up where the Equal Pay Act left off. The heart of the bill seeks to eliminate wage discrimination based upon sex, race, or national origin. This important legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require employers to provide equal pay for work in jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The Fair Pay Act would apply to each company individually and would prohibit companies from reducing employees' wages to achieve pay equity. Wage gaps can result from differences in education, experience, or time in the work force and the Fair Pay Act does not interfere with that. But just as there is a glass ceiling in the American workplace, there is also what I call a glass wall--where women are on the exact same level as their male coworkers. They have the same skills, they have the same responsibilities, but they are still obstructed from receiving the same pay. It's a hidden barrier, but a barrier all the same. The Fair Pay Act is about knocking down the glass wall. It's a fundamental issue of fairness to provide equal pay for work of equal value to an employer. Fair pay is a commonsense business issue. Women make up almost half of the work force and fair pay is essential to attract and keep good workers. Fair pay is an economic issue. Working women, after all, don't get special discounts when they buy food and clothing for their families. They don't pay less for a ticket to the movies or gasoline for their cars. And fair pay is a family issue. When women aren't paid what they are worth, families get cheated too. Over a lifetime the average woman loses $420,000 due to unequal pay practices. Such gaps in income are life changing for women and their families. The income gap can mean the difference between welfare and self-sufficiency, owning a home or renting, sending kids to college or to a minimum wage job, or having a secure retirement tomorrow instead of scrimping to survive today. The Fair Pay Act has already been endorsed by a wide variety of groups and organizations. In addition, polling data consistently shows that over 70 percent of the American people support a law requiring the same pay for men and women in jobs requiring skills and responsibilities. The American people want fair pay legislation. Their elected representatives ought to want it too. I would ask my colleagues to review this important legislation and come to me or my staff with any questions you may have. I welcome your comments and suggestions and urge your support. It's a simple issue of fairness for women to earn equal pay for work of equal value to an employer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is perhaps no other form of discrimination that has as direct an impact on the day-to-day lives of workers as wage discrimination. When women aren't paid what they are worth, we all get cheated. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits sex-based discrimination in compensation for doing the same job. However, this statute fails to address other components of the pay equity problem such as job segregation. Current law has not reached far enough to combat wage discrimination when employers routinely pay lower wages to jobs that are dominated by women. More than 30 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women's wages still lag behind their male counterparts' wages. This important issue demands our attention. In the last Congress, I introduced the Fair Pay Act so we could close the wage gap once and for all. I am reintroducing this legislation in the 105th Congress so we can continue to fight for fairness on behalf of working families. The Fair Pay Act is designed to pick up where the Equal Pay Act left off. The heart of the bill seeks to eliminate wage discrimination based upon sex, race, or national origin. This important legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require employers to provide equal pay for work in jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The Fair Pay Act would apply to each company individually and would prohibit companies from reducing employees' wages to achieve pay equity. Wage gaps can result from differences in education, experience, or time in the work force and the Fair Pay Act does not interfere with that. But just as there is a glass ceiling in the American workplace, there is also what I call a glass wall--where women are on the exact same level as their male coworkers. They have the same skills, they have the same responsibilities, but they are still obstructed from receiving the same pay. It's a hidden barrier, but a barrier all the same. The Fair Pay Act is about knocking down the glass wall. It's a fundamental issue of fairness to provide equal pay for work of equal value to an employer. Fair pay is a commonsense business issue. Women make up almost half of the work force and fair pay is essential to attract and keep good workers. Fair pay is an economic issue. Working women, after all, don't get special discounts when they buy food and clothing for their families. They don't pay less for a ticket to the movies or gasoline for their cars. And fair pay is a family issue. When women aren't paid what they are worth, families get cheated too. Over a lifetime the average woman loses $420,000 due to unequal pay practices. Such gaps in income are life changing for women and their families. The income gap can mean the difference between welfare and self-sufficiency, owning a home or renting, sending kids to college or to a minimum wage job, or having a secure retirement tomorrow instead of scrimping to survive today. The Fair Pay Act has already been endorsed by a wide variety of groups and organizations. In addition, polling data consistently shows that over 70 percent of the American people support a law requiring the same pay for men and women in jobs requiring skills and responsibilities. The American people want fair pay legislation. Their elected representatives ought to want it too. I would ask my colleagues to review this important legislation and come to me or my staff with any questions you may have. I welcome your comments and suggestions and urge your support. It's a simple issue of fairness for women to earn equal pay for work of equal value to an employer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Madeleine Albright to become our Nation's 64th Secretary of State. I have been privileged to know and work with Ambassador Albright for nearly two decades and I am confident that she will be a determined, effective voice for American interests as we face the foreign policy challenges of the 21st century. This is a historic nomination. With this vote, Madeleine Albright will become the Nation's first woman to hold the office of Secretary of State. But it's clear that this nomination was not based on gender--but on qualifications. Madeleine Albright has been an outstanding leader for America and an outspoken advocate for freedom. Today Madeleine Albright steps out in front and breaks a longstanding barrier. But that's no surprise because she has made a life of doing just that. From the time her family broke from the barriers of totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia and the brutal grip of Hitler and Stalin, Madeleine Albright has dedicated her life to spreading freedom and promoting international understanding. She did it as a member of President Carter's National Security Council, as a noted scholar and professor at Georgetown University, as the president of the Center for National Policy, and--most recently--as America's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. As in all her other work, Madeleine Albright brought energy and vitality to the job of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. And her plain spoken determination helped restore democracy in Haiti, prosecute war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, and make headway in achieving a comprehensive nuclear test ban. She also led the charge to achieve much needed reforms in the United Nations--by advocating lower budgets, more accountability, and a streamlined bureaucracy. Madeleine Albright has rightly observed that the United States is the world's indispensable nation. But I would add that she herself has been an indispensable part of the foreign policy achievements of the Clinton administration over the past 4 years and she will continue to be in the years to come. Finally, Mr. President, I look forward to working with Secretary Albright on an issue that I have long championed--ending abusive and exploitative child labor around the world. I hope that she will use the office of the Secretary of State to focus attention on this deplorable practice as she meets with leaders in government and commerce around the world. Working together, I know that we can finally end the curse of child labor. Mr. President, I believe that Madeleine Albright is an excellent choice to become our Nation's top diplomat and I am proud to cast my vote in support of her nomination.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The point is we did bring up a clean bill, and, obviously, there is an objection on that side.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I just ask the question. Will the Senator then sit silent while I propound a unanimous-consent request to bring up the bill?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Vermont is correct. The Pesticide Data Program, which has been carried out by the Department of Agriculture since 1991, has a proven record of collecting data that is critical to the proper functioning of our pesticide and food safety laws--from the perspectives of both consumers and agricultural producers. It should be noted that this program involves contractual agreements with the States that are separate from the existing cooperative agreements for pesticide enforcement and educational programs between EPA and the States. The program is specifically designed to collect reliable data regarding pesticide residues on food as those foods are consumed. This data benefits consumers--and particularly infants and children--because regulatory decisions can be based on more accurate assessments of the risks associated with pesticide residues in foods. The data is likewise beneficial to agricultural producers. Using reliable residue data, and more accurate assessments of risk associated with the use of products, may allow some pesticides to remain in use that would otherwise have to be withdrawn, since without the data EPA would have to assume a higher theoretical level of risk from use of a pesticide than is really the case. The Pesticide Data Program has taken on even more importance with enactment of the landmark Food Quality Protection Act, which mandates collection of the type of data collected in the Pesticide Data Program and depends upon accurate pesticide residue data to work as Congress intended. A critical problem arose, though, since no money had been appropriated for the Pesticide Data Program in the previously enacted agriculture appropriations measure for fiscal 1997. Fortunately, the lack of funding has been taken care of in this continuing resolution, but I am concerned about the implications of providing the money to EPA rather than to USDA, which has extensive experience and a solid record of success in carrying out the Pesticide Data Program.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President, for your support of these important CFIDS provisions. section 2241 in title ii

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently convened a panel of experts on CFIDS for the purpose of reviewing CDC's current CFIDS program and the direction for future research. The review panel, made up of experts in infectious diseases, internal medicine and epidemiology, met over the course of 2 days and issued a report containing specific recommendations to the Director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases [NCID] and other Center staff. My understanding is that those recommendations have been well received by the NCID staff. Would the committee express its support for the review panel's recommendations, which include: First, establishment of a repository for brain tissue obtained from well- characterized CFS patients--upon death--for use in etiology studies; second, proceeding with planned etiology studies utilizing cutting-edge technology, including representational difference analysis [RDA]; and third, augmenting existing staff in the Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases with an FTE with the demonstrated expertise in neuroendrocrinology and neuropsychology to guide case control studies of defects in the HPA axis?

Mr. HARKIN. The first matter pertains to a name change for the illness now referred to as chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome, [CFIDS], or chronic fatigue syndrome [CFS]. There is a consensus in the CFIDS community that the name chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome does not adequately describe the complex nature of the illness. Is it the committee's intent to agree with language contained in the House Labor, HHS report to the appropriations bill calling upon the Secretary of Health and Human Service to convene a committee for the purpose of examining this issue and to report back within 6 months of this bill's enactment with recommendations for a new scientific name or eponym that more appropriately describes the illness?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the tough work requirements of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act make it imperative that economically disadvantaged people have better access to employment opportunities. Among the improvements that must be made in easing the transition from welfare to work is in transportation. We must find ways to better coordinate our transportation systems with our efforts to train and employ individuals on public assistance. As I travel around my State, the two largest barriers to work that I repeatedly hear about are child care and transportation. The Joblinks Center will help States and localities improve transportation systems for people who want to become and remain self-sufficient. This is a very important initiative. We hope that the Labor Department will promptly get to work on funding this important activity. If people cannot get to jobs, they cannot work.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, while I support H.R. 4278, the omnibus appropriations bill, I am strongly opposed to the inclusion in this bill of the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report. I am opposed to the Defense appropriations conference agreement because it provides some $9.5 billion more to the Pentagon than it asked for or needs. At a time when we are trying to balance the Government's budget and when the cold war is over, we simply cannot justify this excessive spending to the American taxpayer. As a former Navy pilot, I know all too well the need for a strong national defense and and the need to make sure our service personnel are properly trained, equipped, and compensated. But like the fiscal year 1996 DOD appropriations bill which provided the Pentagon $7 billion more than it asked for or needed, the fiscal year 1997 conference agreement contains excessive and wasteful spending. It asks American taxpayers to spend five times more on the military that the military budgets of all our likely adversaries combined. The $9.5 billion add on alone is three times the defense budgets of North Korea, Iraq, Iran, or Syria. To look at it in terms of my State of Iowa, this add on of $9.5 billion is more than twice the budget for the entire State of Iowa. Iowans could fund their K-12 education system, some 500,000 pupuls in about 380 school districts, for over 3 years. It's time for some fairness. It's time for some common sense. And fairness tells us that the Pentagon shouldn't be exempt from our efforts to balance the budget. Commonsense dictates that we can't afford $9.5 billion in add ons over what the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff say we need to maintain a strong national defense. I opposed the fiscla year 1997 DOD appropriations bill when it was considered by the Senate and I did not sign the conference agreement. I feel strongly that it should not be approved as a part of this omnibus bill. I will vote for this bill despite my strong opposition to the inclusion of the DOD measure because it contains significant improvements in support for education and other critical needs of our Nation. This House and Senate had proposed significant cuts to education and training. And when I tried to offer an amendment on the floor to restore these cuts, the majority objected. So I was very pleased to work again in conference on a bipartisan basis with Senator Specter and others to provide the support necessary to make college more affordable for middle class Americans through increases in Pell Grants, Perkins loans, direct lending and college work study. We were also able to increase the number of children who will be able to participate in Head Start and get special assistance with reading and math skills through chapter 1. And we were able to restore unwise cuts to the President's requests for critical job training initiatives. We must have a well-educated and well-trained work force if we are going to increase the incomes and quality of life for our working families. So these changes, while hard fought, are a real victory for working families and our future. I am also very pleased, Mr. President, that this bill contains strong measures to combat the growing problem of illegal immigration in my State of Iowa and around the Nation. This bill contains a provision I offered in the Senate that will guarantee Iowa and other States a minimum of 10 INS agents to enforce immigration laws. This will go a long way to cracking down on this growing problem. electronic combat testing

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I concur with the chairman. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support, and for their continued work in this very important component of our national HIV/AIDS strategy. doj section

Mr. HARKIN. I, too, would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this legislation providing transfer authority to the Secretary of Agriculture is designed to help address the wide gap that exists between the need within the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and the level of resources that we have been able to appropriate for it. I welcome this opportunity to join as an original cosponsor of this bill. The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program has been an immensely popular and successful initiative, benefiting both farmers and WIC recipients. In fiscal 1995, nearly 1 million low-income mothers and children received benefits allowing them to purchase fresh, nutritious unprepared foods at 1,143 qualifying farmers' markets that were supplied by over 8,000 farmers. Currently, 27 States, including my State of Iowa, along with the District of Columbia and three American Indian tribal organizations, participate in the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. To take part, States must agree to provide at least 30 percent of the total cost of the program through State, local, or private funds. The nutritional benefits of the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program are excellent. The 1995 survey showed that among WIC participants receiving farmers' market benefits, 71 percent ate more fresh fruits and vegetables, 40 percent tried fruits and vegetables they had never eaten before, 48 percent spent cash or food stamps in addition to their WIC farmers' Market coupons or checks, 66 percent planned to continue shopping at farmers' markets, and 72 percent planned to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables year round. The benefits to farmers are also substantial. Over $9 million was earned in 1995 by the more than 8,000 participating farmers. The 1995 survey also showed that 84 percent of participating farmers increased their sales, 23 percent increased their fruit and vegetable production, 36 percent grew additional types of fruits and vegetables, and 37 percent planned to increase their production in 1996. In my State of Iowa the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program has been very popular and successful. There is a great deal of interest in expanding the number of WIC recipients and farmers' markets that may take part, but the limited available Federal funding has prevented expansion. This situation also exists in the other States now in the program. Of any additional Federal funding provided for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, 75 percent would go to States that currently participate in it, with 25 percent to be used for adding new States. Unfortunately, the lack of needed Federal funding has prevented a number of States from joining the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. Thirteen other States, along with other American Indian tribal organizations, have expressed interest in offering the program. This legislation would allow, but not require, the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer funds within the Department of Agriculture budget to provide up to $2 million in additional funding for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, where it could be put to very good use in expanding the number of WIC recipients, farmers, and farmers' markets participating in this outstanding program. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this legislation providing transfer authority to the Secretary of Agriculture is designed to help address the wide gap that exists between the need within the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and the level of resources that we have been able to appropriate for it. I welcome this opportunity to join as an original cosponsor of this bill. The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program has been an immensely popular and successful initiative, benefiting both farmers and WIC recipients. In fiscal 1995, nearly 1 million low-income mothers and children received benefits allowing them to purchase fresh, nutritious unprepared foods at 1,143 qualifying farmers' markets that were supplied by over 8,000 farmers. Currently, 27 States, including my State of Iowa, along with the District of Columbia and three American Indian tribal organizations, participate in the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. To take part, States must agree to provide at least 30 percent of the total cost of the program through State, local, or private funds. The nutritional benefits of the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program are excellent. The 1995 survey showed that among WIC participants receiving farmers' market benefits, 71 percent ate more fresh fruits and vegetables, 40 percent tried fruits and vegetables they had never eaten before, 48 percent spent cash or food stamps in addition to their WIC farmers' Market coupons or checks, 66 percent planned to continue shopping at farmers' markets, and 72 percent planned to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables year round. The benefits to farmers are also substantial. Over $9 million was earned in 1995 by the more than 8,000 participating farmers. The 1995 survey also showed that 84 percent of participating farmers increased their sales, 23 percent increased their fruit and vegetable production, 36 percent grew additional types of fruits and vegetables, and 37 percent planned to increase their production in 1996. In my State of Iowa the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program has been very popular and successful. There is a great deal of interest in expanding the number of WIC recipients and farmers' markets that may take part, but the limited available Federal funding has prevented expansion. This situation also exists in the other States now in the program. Of any additional Federal funding provided for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, 75 percent would go to States that currently participate in it, with 25 percent to be used for adding new States. Unfortunately, the lack of needed Federal funding has prevented a number of States from joining the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. Thirteen other States, along with other American Indian tribal organizations, have expressed interest in offering the program. This legislation would allow, but not require, the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer funds within the Department of Agriculture budget to provide up to $2 million in additional funding for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, where it could be put to very good use in expanding the number of WIC recipients, farmers, and farmers' markets participating in this outstanding program. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would also like to thank the chairman. It is increasingly important that we preserve these projects for the elderly, especially in rural areas. section 8 contract renewals

Mr. HARKIN. I would ask that the chairman clarify his intentions on the limitations placed on HUD when considering debt restructuring.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been generally supportive of the practice of shipping a certain percentage of our U.S. foreign food assistance on U.S.-flag ships. I have in the past supported amendments designed to reform that program to ensure the costs of using the U.S.- flag ships are reasonable. But I have not been supportive of proposals that would essentially kill the policy of using U.S.-flag vessels, because I believe that U.S. maritime fleet ships are important to our national defense. I also believe that when we are providing largess to other countries, we should do all that we can to also support U.S. jobs and U.S. industries. After all, we make sure that U.S. farm commodities are used in these food shipments. We do not go to other countries to buy the food to give it away. We use our own farm commodities. As long as costs are fair and reasonable, I believe we ought to use U.S. ships to haul a share of this aid. My colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, says that I may be undercutting his efforts at reform. But my amendment is the only way to have real reform. What my amendment would do, is take any higher costs involved in using U.S.-flag ships out of USDA entirely and put it in the Department of Transportation. Senator Grassley's amendment would essentially kill our U.S. maritime industry by sending shipping business to foreign-flag vessels. If, for example, a foreign ship would haul cargo for $18 a ton, Senator Grassley's amendment would give that business to a foreign-flag vessel if the U.S. ship was going to charge any more than $19.08 a ton. Is that the price at which we will sell out our U.S. maritime industry, which is so important to military sealift and military security, $1.08 a ton? Or, if you are using container ships, if the lowest acceptable foreign rate, just to take a hypothetical example, is $1,000 a container, Senator Grassley's amendment would cut out U.S. ships if their rate is any higher than $1,060 a container. So for $60 a container we would give all that business to a foreign country. I do believe, however, that supporting our U.S. merchant marine is properly a transportation function, rather than an agricultural or food aid function. Any higher costs of using U.S.-flag ships should not come out of the food aid budget but should, instead, come out of the Department of Transportation budget. I will also point out that the amendment of my colleague, Senator Grassley, would still have any higher costs of U.S. ships coming from the agricultural food aid budget. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is real reform. Let us be clear, there have been some gross exaggerations about the higher costs of U.S.-flag ships. But I admit freely there are some higher costs involved, because those U.S. ships must comply with more stringent environmental and safety regulations and because the people who work on them are U.S. citizens and they pay U.S. taxes. Those people who work on those ships pay Federal and State and local taxes. They have homes here in communities in our country. They pay property taxes. They support their local schools. If you take the money paid for shipping food aid and give it to a foreign-flag vessel and to foreigners operating on those ships, they do not pay any taxes here, they do not support our local schools, they do not raise their kids in America. All in all, the U.S. maritime industry runs a more responsible operation than flag-of-convenience operators that may sail under the flag of a foreign country with very lax standards. So our costs of operation are understandably higher. In any event, then, there are some higher costs in using U.S.-flag ships. This is called the ocean freight differential. To the extent that USDA pays for this differential, there is some reduction in the amount of food aid that can be shipped. That is what I want to change. My amendment would simply shift all of any added costs of using U.S.- flag ships to the Department of Transportation. There is clear precedent for my amendment. In fact, it would build on a partial shift of cargo preference costs to the DOT that we began in 1985. Prior to the 1985 farm bill, 50 percent of U.S.-sponsored food shipments were required to be transported on U.S.-flag ships. There was a court decision that held that this requirement applied to commercial sales as well as to food aid. So a compromise was reached in the 1985 farm bill under which 75 percent of food aid--that is the donations and concessional sales of food that we give to people overseas--would be transported on U.S.-flag ships, but that commercial agricultural exports would be totally exempt from any cargo preference requirement, even if those sales were supported by U.S. export subsidies or assistance. So, today, less than 2 percent of our total agricultural exports are required to be transported on U.S.-flag ships. No commercial sales are under the requirement at all. Part of that compromise that we reached in 1985 was that the Department of Transportation would reimburse the Department of Agriculture, for any increase in food aid shipping costs caused by that change in the cargo preference requirement from 50 percent to 75 percent. So, already the Department of Transportation covers a portion of any higher charges for shipping food aid on U.S.-flag vessels. What my amendment would do is shift all cargo preference cost over. The Department of Transportation would reimburse the Department of Agriculture for all food aid shipping charges to the extent they exceed prevailing world shipping rates. My amendment employs the same reimbursement mechanism now used by the Department of Transportation to reimburse the Department of Agriculture for a portion of those costs. So my amendment will put the costs of supporting our U.S.-flag merchant marine--which I believe is vitally important to this country--where it belongs, in the Department of Transportation, not the Department of Agriculture. As I said, I have always believed, and still do, that it is important to support our U.S.-flag merchant marine as a matter of national security. Also, because shipping is an important basic U.S. industry, with U.S. jobs at stake, employing U.S. citizens, people who work and raise their families here and pay their taxes in this country, I believe it is important to have a U.S. merchant fleet. We cannot afford to send any more U.S. jobs out of this country. The Grassley amendment would do that. It would turn over everything to foreign vessels flying a flag of convenience. But that support, I say, that we should provide for our U.S. merchant marine should not diminish the quantity of agricultural commodities that USDA can ship as food aid. If we are going to give food to hungry people and starving people around the world--which we ought to do--to the extent that it costs us more to ship it on U.S.-flag vessels, that money should not come out of the food aid budget, it ought to come out of our transportation budget. I tried to offer this amendment several years ago, in 1990. It was tabled. Again, I recall my colleague from Iowa moved to table the underlying amendment and brought down that amendment, too. Unfortunately, the debate over cargo preference has pitted agricultural interests against maritime interests. That is too bad. In order to meet the stiff challenges from overseas competition in the trade arena, we need more cooperation, not antagonism among our basic American industries. I am proud to represent an agricultural State. I am proud of how much we sell overseas. I am also proud of how much food the citizens of Iowa donate every year abroad. I am also proud of the men and women who go to sea in ships. Perhaps it is because of my military background. Maybe it is because I spent so much time in the Navy. But I know what a lonesome life it can be, and I know how hard they work, and I know how they sacrifice and give up a lot of time from their families. I also know when our country calls on that merchant fleet to ship military cargoes to a foreign country, in dangerous waters, they must respond. Now, if it is a foreign-flag vessel, we cannot call on it to sail into dangerous areas for military purposes. They can simply say no, we are not going to ship your cargo because we believe it is too dangerous. So that is why I maintain my strong support for a strong U.S.-flag merchant fleet. And I believe as deeply as I believe anything that the funding to support our U.S.-flag merchant fleet should come out of the transportation budget, and I will continue to fight for that. That is all my amendment does. Again, I hope that we don't have to have this antagonism between agriculture and the maritime industry. It shouldn't be there. We ought to be working together. We ought to be working together for the benefit of more jobs in the U.S., for the benefit of a stronger agriculture in the U.S. and, yes, working together to make sure that out of our generosity we give the maximum amount of food aid that we can give to starving people around the world. I believe my amendment will resolve a nettlesome issue that has fostered conflict between agriculture and the maritime industry for a long time. My amendment will allow USDA to ship more food aid and to purchase more farm commodities for that purpose. And, yes, it will support a strong maritime industry. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. I understand I am recognized for up to 15 minutes?