[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11151-S11158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         MARITIME SECURITY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 4:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 
1350, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  A bill (H.R. 1350) to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to 
revitalize the United States-flag merchant marine, and for other 
purposes.
  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Grassley amendment No. 5393, to clarify the term fair and 
     reasonable compensation with respect to the transportation of 
     a motor vehicle by a certain vessel.
       Grassley amendment No. 5394, to prohibit the use of funds 
     received as a payment or subsidy for lobbying or public 
     education, and for making political contributions for the 
     purpose of influencing an election.
       Grassley amendment No. 5395, to provide that United States-
     flag vessels be called up before foreign flag vessels during 
     any national emergency and to prohibit the delivery of 
     military supplies to a combat zone by vessels that are not 
     United States-flag vessels.
       Inouye (for Harkin) amendment No. 5396 (to amendment No. 
     5393), to provide for payment by the Secretary of 
     Transportation of certain ocean freight charges for Federal 
     food or export assistance.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation now 
with regard to time?

[[Page S11152]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes debate, equally 
divided, on the rate issue, 15 minutes under the control of the Senator 
from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] and 15 minutes under the control of the Senator 
from Iowa [Mr. Grassley].
  Mr. STEVENS. I think it was our intention that we would have 1 minute 
on each side; Senator Inouye with regard to the Harkin amendment, and 
myself with regard to the Grassley amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that be the case. We have to have some time 
to move to table and make a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. The remainder of the amendments are likewise controlled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a series of amendments to be voted on 
in sequence.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was my understanding the Senator from Iowa wishes to 
withdraw one of those amendments. I ask he be recognized for that 
purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                      Amendment No. 5395 Withdrawn

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to withdraw amendment No. 5395. 
For my colleague from Iowa, this is not the amendment regarding which 
his amendment amends mine. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw No. 
5395.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment No. 5395 was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand I am recognized for up to 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                Amendment No. 5396 to Amendment No. 5393

  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

[[Page S11153]]

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?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The senior Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, everyday, millions of Americans get up, they have 
their breakfast, they pack their lunches, they send their kids off to 
school. In many households, over a majority, both spouses work. These 
are the forgotten Americans, the people who go to work every day. They 
are working harder and harder and taking home less and less money. 
Nobody is talking on this bill about that portion of America. That is 
the America we should be concerned about.
  So I use that to remind all of my colleagues, Republicans and 
Democrats, that we are about to vote to create a new subsidy program, a 
corporate welfare subsidy program. I say to my Democratic colleagues--
all of them--how many times do I hear you say that we should end 
corporate welfare? This is an opportunity to do that, by not voting for 
this bill and creating a new welfare program.
  I say to my Republican colleagues who, in the tax bill last year, 
thought it was so necessary to respond to the people's will to 
eliminate corporate welfare, that we had in our tax bill probably $25 
billion of reduction in corporate welfare that is done through the Tax 
Code of the United States.
  So I say to my Republican colleagues, you have an opportunity to have 
one less corporate welfare program on the books by not voting for this 
bill.
  In the meantime, we have some amendments. We are about to cast votes 
on two of them that I have sponsored and one that Senator Harkin 
sponsors, a second-degree amendment, and I strongly oppose his 
amendment.
  In a few short minutes, I am going to attempt to help my colleagues 
separate fact from fiction. What I share with my colleagues is not just 
my opinion. It is either backed by independent sources or is the 
learned conclusion of those who have spent a great deal of time 
studying the questions of maritime subsidies.
  First, let me direct the attention of my colleagues to two lead 
editorials that were included in today's Wall Street Journal on the one 
hand and today's Journal of Commerce on the other, and I placed copies 
on your desks. Both the Wall Street Journal and the Journal of Commerce 
expressed strong opposition to the subsidy bill before the Senate. 
Remember, these are opinions of journals that are the voices of 
business and transportation. They oppose this corporate welfare 
proposal.
  My colleagues should also know that the Citizens for a Sound Economy, 
a grassroots organization representing hundreds of thousands of 
Americans, are key voting my fair and reasonable rate amendment and my 
antilobbying amendment. Those key votes are used for their Jefferson 
award.
  We also have Citizens Against Government Waste backing my amendments 
and key voting those as well.
  We have the National Taxpayers Union using these amendments for their 
annual vote analysis.

  These groups, as well as Americans for Tax Reform, all oppose this 
underlying legislation, which is a $1 billion corporate welfare subsidy 
bill.
  Does our national defense, as is purported by the managers of this 
bill, depend upon the 47 U.S.-flag vessels that are asking for a $100 
million subsidy per year? A former Bush administration official, 
Assistant Secretary of Defense Colin McMillan, said the answer to that 
question is ``No.'' He said that the issue of U.S. carriers reflagging 
is not a national security issue and, therefore, should be viewed in 
terms of economics. That is an Assistant Secretary in the last 
Republican administration.
  Then on the other side of the aisle, most recently Cabinet heads in 
the Clinton administration studied this issue and made recommendations 
to the President on whether or not to continue subsidies. Every Senator 
had in his office last week a copy of the Rubin memo to President 
Clinton. Again, these are conclusions based upon President Clinton's 
Cabinet officials, their conclusions by Democratic officials, and they 
are not my conclusions. They said it amounts to a jobs bill to pay for 
high-price seafarers. Those are the conclusions from that memo.
  Mr. President, as I stated last week, a number of retired admirals 
who earlier lent their names to an American Security Council letter 
endorsing this legislation--now that they have the benefit of the 
Rubin-Clinton memo--support my amendments to this bill and, in fact, 
believe further hearings should have been held before we pass such 
legislation. Again, those are retired admirals, not this Senator from 
Iowa.
  To my colleague from Iowa, for his amendment and my opinion on that 
amendment--I suppose I gave that opinion last week, but I owe it to my 
colleague to state here now for a short period of time, my position.
  My colleague from Iowa said that he doesn't want to sell out our 
merchant marines. Nobody wants to do that, but I think there is a 
bigger issue here, and that bigger issue is whether or not, with this 
corporate welfare subsidy, we will be in the process of selling out the 
taxpayers.
  Our No. 1 responsibility is to the taxpayers of America. If my 
colleague from Iowa succeeds in substituting his amendment for mine, 
all that will be accomplished is that taxpayers will continue to get 
ripped off so maritime union welfare and corporate welfare will 
continue to be shoveled out with no restraint. And farmers, who are 
taxpayers as well, will not be able to ship one extra bushel of food 
overseas.
  Taxpayers get ripped off either way. They get ripped off if the 
Agriculture

[[Page S11154]]

Department pays for cargo preference or if the Transportation 
Department pays for it. The end result is the same. So I strongly 
oppose his amendment.
  Mr. President, why do we need to adopt, then, my amendment that calls 
for a fair and reasonable compensation? Fair and reasonable. Who can 
argue with that?
  That supposedly is the rationale now for all of these rates, but the 
bottom line of it is that the maritime industry defines what is fair 
and reasonable. If we don't adopt this amendment, then these subsidized 
carriers will collect $100 million per year from this bill and then 
routinely gouge taxpayers to the tune of $600 million per year.
  This figure of $600 million per year is established by the Federal 
agencies and by the Office of Management and Budget. It is reported 
every year in the President's budget, and I placed a copy of this 
information in last Friday's Record.
  Again, $600 million in backdoor cargo preference subsidies is not 
Chuck Grassley's estimate, it is the actual figures provided by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  If we protect taxpayers from price gouging under Buy America laws, 
then why shouldn't we do likewise under cargo preference laws?
  So my amendment then, does that. It takes the Buy America market test 
of 6 percent and, like Buy America, says that if a Government agency is 
charged by a U.S.-flag carrier more than 6 percent what the market 
bears or, in other words, what a foreign flag might offer, then that 
agency can hire the foreign flag.

  For years, we have been assured that taxpayers are protected by 
existing law that states a bid has to be a fair and reasonable rate, 
but Congress never defined this term and, instead, left it to the 
Maritime Administration, which cares not for the taxpayers.
  If you can have the U.S. flags charge 400 percent over a foreign flag 
bid, the Maritime Administration may state that this is a fair and 
reasonable bid and that agency has to accept that bid. It has happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator has used the original 
10 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time does the Senator from Colorado want?
  Mr. BROWN. I would like at least 2 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield myself 1 minute, and then when I sit down, 
I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I remind everybody who says that this is 
necessary for our national defense, to remember that U.S. News & World 
Report article in 1990 entitled ``Unpatriotic Profits.'' It reported 
how the Navy was being forced to pay U.S.-flag carriers $70,000 to ship 
what could have gone on foreign flags for just $6,000.
  This was during the Persian Gulf war. It was because our cargo 
preference laws are out of control. My amendment will take care of 
this.
  If my amendment does not pass, we will see the same abuses the next 
war that we face. Nothing in this bill defines fair and reasonable 
rates. My amendment does define what is fair and reasonable in the very 
same way we have defined it in the Buy America. I yield the rest of my 
time to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I hope Members, as they vote on this 
measure, will keep a couple of things in mind that I think are 
critical. One is this measure does not attempt to do away with the buy-
America preferences that have existed in the law. It keeps those. What 
it does do, Mr. President, is define what fair and reasonable is.
  In the past, literally, the Department of Transportation has looked 
at rates that have been 100 percent, 200 percent, 300 percent, 400 
percent above what is available on the market and called those 
reasonable and fair. Mr. President, that is simply ludicrous. Charging 
double or triple what your competitor charges is not reasonable and 
fair. We do not kid anyone when we allow that sort of thing to go 
ahead. It is a scandal on the American taxpayers to have them stuck for 
two and three and four times as much what reasonable rates are.
  The second point I hope Members will look at is this: One of the good 
arguments that have been made for those who defend the existing system 
is that, on occasion, what they are comparing is apples and oranges; 
that is, the higher rates that have been talked about at times--not 
always, but at times--sometimes have been in circumstances where you 
could not unload the cargo and it was not an apples-to-apples 
comparison.
  The Grassley amendment, very importantly, is defined in such a way so 
that it allows the Secretary to take into consideration those other 
conditions that may exist. In other words, the Grassley amendment is an 
apples-to-apples comparison. It is a fair comparison. It is not an 
unreasonable comparison. It meets directly the arguments in opposition 
that the opponents of these measures in the past have made.
  Mr. President, I simply close with this thought. How can we say to 
the taxpayers of this country that we are looking out for their 
interests when we allow them to get stuck for two and three times as 
much as what the real rate is on these kinds of cargoes? I yield the 
floor, Mr. President, and urge the adoption of the Grassley amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes forty-eight seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Four minutes forty-eight seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I would just point out under the 
amendment of my colleague from Iowa, money that would go to pay for the 
ocean freight differential would still come out of the Agriculture 
budget, out of food aid. That is what I am basically opposed to, having 
it come out of Agriculture. It is a 6-percent limitation that my 
colleague has in his amendment, but any higher costs of U.S.-flag ships 
would still come out of Agriculture. I do not think it ought to. I 
think the money for the ocean freight differential ought to come out of 
the Department of Transportation. That is what my amendment does.
  Again, I hear all of these comparisons of shipping rates. My friend 
from Colorado, and of course my esteemed colleague from Iowa, have all 
these comparisons, but these are based on artificially low foreign 
rates subsidized by foreign governments, or rates for ships that 
operate without having to comply with the operating standards that 
apply to U.S.-flag vessels. So these kinds of comparisons may seem 
appealing, but they do not reflect a fair or accurate representation of 
the factors involved in the rates charged by U.S. ships.
  For example, our people are paid higher wages, our ships have to 
follow stronger and stricter environmental standards and our ships have 
to meet stricter working conditions and occupational health and safety 
requirements. None of these considerations is taken into account by the 
amendment of my colleague from Iowa. I keep pointing out that workers 
on U.S.-flag ships, U.S. citizens, pay Federal, State and local taxes. 
In fact, I am informed that existing Federal and State income tax 
requirements alone nearly double the cost of U.S.-citizen crews to 
U.S.-flag operators. Well, where do they pay those taxes? They pay 
those taxes here in America.
  Mr. President, let me also point out that there currently are 
limitations in place on the rates that U.S.-flag vessels may charge for 
hauling cargo preference shipments. For non-defense cargoes, for 
example, by law preference is given to U.S.-flag vessels only when such 
vessels are available at ``fair and reasonable rates,'' which are 
determined by an OMB-approved method based on detailed cost information 
submitted by American flagship operators. If U.S.-flag vessels are not 
available at fair and reasonable rates, they are not awarded the cargo, 
and foreign vessels may be used.
  In summary, I again point out that what my amendment seeks to do is 
to shift any higher costs of using U.S.-flag ships out of Agriculture 
to the Department of Transportation where it rightly belongs. I do, 
however, strongly support keeping U.S. jobs here in this

[[Page S11155]]

country. I strongly support making sure that we support a maritime 
industry in this country and make sure it is there for us when we need 
it in periods of national emergency. I ask support for my amendment to 
shift those costs to DOT. I yield the floor and the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa yield back his 
time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute twenty-three seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 1 minute 
now reserved for the Senator from Hawaii and 1 minute for the Senator 
from Alaska.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in June 1992 the Journal of Commerce had 
an editorial in support of this program, this bill. In March 1994, a 
much stronger editorial was found in the Journal of Commerce supporting 
this measure before us. In 1995, the Journal of Commerce was purchased 
by the Economist, a British publication, and now in 1996 we find that 
the Journal of Commerce is opposed to this measure before us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated May 2, 
1996, from Assistant Secretary of the Navy John W. Douglass supporting 
this measure be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         The Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research Development 
           and Acquisition,
                                       Washington DC, May 2, 1996.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Seapower Subcommittee, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: During the recent Senate Armed Services 
     Committee Seapower Subcommittee hearing on Navy Surface Ship 
     Programs, you requested a review from the Navy on the pending 
     Maritime Reform and Security Act legislation. I have reviewed 
     this bill, and strongly support the establishment of an 
     active fleet of militarily useful, privately owned, U.S.-
     flagged vessels for our nation's defense, and provisions that 
     strengthen our vital U.S. maritime industrial base and 
     Merchant Marine.
       This bill is important in helping the U.S. maintain a 
     strong and responsive defense posture. Through the Emergency 
     Preparedness Program, the Navy will have access to vessels 
     during times of war or national emergency thereby enhancing 
     the readiness of our seagoing forces.
       I also view the Maritime Reform and Security Act as 
     important legislation in supporting U.S. shipbuilders. First, 
     the bill's preference for including U.S.-built ships and the 
     requirement to notify U.S. shipbuilders of the intent to 
     contract for new construction work should help to promote the 
     stability of shipbuilders supporting the Navy. Second, the 
     vessel eligibility provision setting limits on the age of 
     vessels in the fleet will contribute to new construction 
     orders and maintain a younger, safer fleet. Third, the bill's 
     provisions that facilitate use of Title XI loan guarantees is 
     also important to U.S. shipbuilders.
       It is paramount that U.S. shipbuilders capture a share of 
     the world shipbuilding market to help sustain the viability 
     of this important industry for the Navy's future and to 
     benefit the Navy by reducing new construction costs. The 
     success of U.S. shipbuilders in commercial markets is 
     inextricably linked to programs such as Title XI.
       I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with comments 
     on this imporant maritime legislation. A similar letter has 
     been sent, as a courtesy, to Senator Pressler, Chairman of 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As 
     always, if I can be of any further assistance, please let me 
     know.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John W. Douglass.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a letter 
dated April 9, 1996, from Deputy Secretary of Defense John White, 
supporting this measure be printed in the Record, along with a letter 
from the Secretary of Transportation, the Hon. Federico Pena, 
supporting this measure.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Deputy Secretary of Defense,
                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Senate may 
     consider H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act, in the very 
     near future. I want to dispel any questions or concerns about 
     the position of the Department of Defense with respect to 
     this legislation. The Department of Defense supports fully 
     H.R. 1350. the establishment of a Maritime Security Force, 
     particularly, will greatly enhance the maintenance of an 
     adequate sealift capability.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
           Sincerely,
     John White.
                                                                    ____



                              The Secretary of Transportation,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1996.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inouye: At your request, I am writing to 
     present the Administration views on Senator Charles E. 
     Grassley's amendments to H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act 
     of 1995. The Administration strongly supports Senate passage 
     of H.R. 1350 without amendment when the Senate votes on this 
     bill on September 24, 1996. Early enactment of this 
     legislation is important to national security. The 
     Administration takes no position on the merits of these 
     amendments at this time.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program, to the submission of this report.
           Sincerely,
     Federico Pena.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, although the Harkin measure has much 
merit, I must advise my colleagues that we have not had a hearing on 
this measure. If that amendment is made part of the bill, I feel that 
at this lateness it might be the death knell of the measure. So I move 
to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield his time?
  Mr. STEVENS. No. I was asking for the yeas and nays on the motion of 
the Senator from Hawaii to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to table is not debatable. It is not 
in order at this point until the Senator from Alaska has used or 
yielded his time. The motion to table is not in order until the Senator 
from Alaska has used or yielded his time.
  Mr. STEVENS. That was not the understanding at the time we were going 
to make it. We are going to have one vote on Senator Harkin's amendment 
and then a separate vote on this one. We were going to make the motion 
to table and vote. However the Chair wishes to do it--go back and read 
the Record--that is not the understanding. In any event, I will take my 
minute on the Grassley amendment, not the Harkin amendment, so we 
understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. This amendment would affect the rates for carriers of 
all Government cargoes, not just the rates set for cargo preference on 
agricultural cargoes. I remind my friends from Iowa, both of them, that 
we put $10 billion into agricultural subsidies a year. We are talking 
about here in this bill reducing the cost of keeping this merchant 
marine available for our Department of Defense from $200 million a year 
to $100 million. For 10 years we will get it to $100 million.
  Senator Grassley's plan is unnecessary. Existing law already allows 
the military use of foreign-flag vessels if the U.S. carriers' rates 
are excessive or otherwise unreasonable or if they are higher than the 
charges for transporting like goods for private persons.
  In terms of cargo preference, the law already provides the rates must 
be fair and reasonable for cargo preference. As I stated Friday, this 
amendment will result in the loss of the majority of the U.S.-flag 
fleet. We need that for national defense.
  I point out that during the Persian Gulf war, the charge for the 
foreign ships averaged $174 per short ton and for the domestic fleet it 
averaged $122 per short ton. We are preserving a merchant marine fleet 
for our defense purposes.
  I move to table the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Harkin amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] 
is absent due to illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.

[[Page S11156]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Baucus
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Harkin
     Kerrey
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Campbell
     Heflin
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5396) was agreed 
to.


                        Tribute to Senator Simon

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to say that the senior Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Simon, has influenced us all is an understatement. 
Our dress today is a recognition of his influence on all of us and our 
great admiration for him personally.
  I would like to announce that following the vote many of us will 
participate in a tribute to Senator Simon. I invite all of our 
colleagues to join Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Mack, and many of us 
in that tribute. We will not do it now. We will do it later. In the 
meantime, we will all enjoy wearing these great bow ties.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendments being 
offered by Senator Grassley and to express my concerns about this bill. 
Members of the 104th Congress have tried their best to eliminate pork-
barrel spending and corporate welfare. I believe we have made some 
progress, but clearly, as this bill demonstrates, we have a long way to 
go.
  I support the amendments offered by my colleague from Iowa because 
this bill is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy. It authorizes $100 
million per year for the maritime fleet to provide sealift capacity in 
times of national emergency. Each vessel in the program would receive 
$2.1 million per year for being enrolled in the program. This does not 
include the additional moneys that may be paid in times of war. The CBO 
estimates that the program will cost $782 million in the first 5 years, 
including expenditures for the phasing out of the old system.
  The bill has several problems. First, it does not allow the United 
States to requisition subsidized U.S. ships in a national emergency. It 
would allow U.S. flag-carriers to protect specific vessels from 
shipping materials to a war zone. If commercial interests determine 
which vessels go and when, we should pay them on an as-needed basis. We 
shouldn't pay for a benefit we don't receive.
  Second, the bill does not require those seafarers who are in the 
Maritime-Security fleet to serve when called. During the Persian Gulf 
war, our country had to draw from a pool of retired merchant mariners 
to care for our fleet. That is wrong and it should be changed.
  Under this program, merchant mariners can earn more money than their 
military counterparts for war-time pay. The bill should be corrected to 
make merchant-mariners bonuses commensurate with those of the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, and Marines. I have been told of one merchant mariner 
who was paid thousands of dollars for a few months worth of service 
during the Persian Gulf war. Most enlisted military officers received 
far less than that.
  Finally, the bill must require those carriers who receive a taxpayer 
subsidy to carry war materials into the war zone. The maritime fleet 
must not be allowed to drop off war materials to commercially 
convenient spots. If the taxpayers are paying for this service, then it 
is our duty to ensure that they receive what they are paying for.
  Mr. President, the defects of the bill are not figments of the 
imagination conjured up by a few budget hawks. The Vice President's 
National Performance Review recommended that all maritime subsidies be 
ended for a savings of $23 billion over a 10-year period. The 
Department of Transportation's inspector general concluded that the 
entire Maritime Administration and all of its U.S.-flag subsidies 
should be terminated. The Office of Management and Budget estimates 
that international cargo preference laws will cost Federal Government 
agencies an additional $600 million in fiscal year 1996. A November 
1994 GAO report said that cargo-preference policies support at most 
6,000 of the 21,000 mariners in the U.S. merchant marine industry. That 
is an annual cost of $100,000 per seafarer--at taxpayer expense. 
Additionally, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers 
Union, and Americans for Tax Reform are opposed to the bill.
  The Federal debt is more that $5 trillion. Five years ago, the debt 
was $3.6 trillion. Clearly, Government spending is out of control and 
Congress must place priorities in the way it spends taxpayer dollars. 
Most families live under a budget. Most have a limited amount of 
resources that they must spend on food, clothing, shelter, and the 
like. And many families have little left over for the extras in life. 
They don't spend for every whim because they know that they must stay 
within their means. Why can't Congress do the same? Why can't Congress 
spend the people's money on core tasks only. Why can't Congress forgo 
the extras?
  It will take a colossal effort to control the Government's debt. But 
every long journey begins with the first step. I urge my colleagues to 
take that first step and vote against this bill. I thank the chairman 
and ranking member for the opportunity to express my concerns.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are three votes remaining. One is 
the Grassley amendment. There is a second Grassley amendment, and then 
final passage, hopefully, on the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent--this has been cleared--that each of these 
votes be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The yeas and nays have not been ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5393

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Grassley amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Alaska to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Iowa. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] 
is absent due to illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison

[[Page S11157]]


     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bond
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Coats
     Craig
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Campbell
     Heflin
       
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may we have order now? We have one more 
vote.


                           Amendment No. 5394

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 
minute for the proponents of the amendment and 1 minute for opponents 
of the amendment, followed by a vote.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment says that H.R. 1350 
subsidies, and that is $1 billion in total, cannot be used for campaign 
contributions, cannot be used for lobbying and cannot be used for so-
called public education. Congress has supported similar restrictions on 
different bills and programs in the past, but we have no such 
restrictions for this $1 billion subsidy in this bill.
  It was suggested last week that we provide for this. It could be done 
by a line item. If that is what is wanted, then I suggest to the 
proponents to put that in the bill, but it isn't in the bill.
  So, consequently, I think we should make sure we don't allow these 
funds to be back-doored by the Maritime Administration for campaign 
contributions and for lobbying. Without this restriction, that is not 
certain.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is a Corrupt Practices Act. As a 
matter of fact, the $10 billion paid out of agricultural subsidies has 
no similar provision. This amendment is unnecessary. It is a killer 
amendment trying to convince Members to vote for amendments so the bill 
will go back to the House and die.
  The purpose of this bill is to save $100 million a year and to 
continue the program of keeping the merchant marine available for the 
United States in time of emergency. It will cost $100 million a year 
for 10 years under this bill, not $1 billion, as that article on your 
desks says; $100 million a year for 10 years.
  I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment No. 5394. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] 
is absent due to illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 299 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Conrad
     Craig
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frahm
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Campbell
     Heflin
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5394) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay 
on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, America has relied upon its merchant marine, 
ports and maritime industries for both trade and defense since colonial 
days.
  Today, we will vote to ensure that America will continue its maritime 
community into the 21st century.
  Today, we recognize that America as a nation must make an investment 
in its maritime infrastructure.
  Today, we will vote for a program which is an efficient and flexible 
policy that will allocate scarce public resources in a responsible 
manner.
  This program will also guarantee that our Nation will have trained 
Americans to crew these vessels as well as the Department of Defense's 
pre-positioned and Ready Reserve Fleet.
  This program will significantly reduce the cost of the Federal 
maritime operating assistance programs. We are talking about cutting 
the funding in half.
  This program will eliminate outdated and unnecessary rules and 
regulations which limits and restricts the ability of U.S. flag vessels 
to compete and modernize their fleets.
  I want to take just a moment and recognize the hard work of 
Congressman Herb Bateman and Senators Stevens, Inouye, Hollings and 
Breaux.
  This has been a real team effort. These Members of Congress were 
actively involved in crafting and advancing this legislation. The 
journey for maritime reform started over two decades ago.
  This particular bill has been on a 9-year legislative trip with over 
50 hearings. Its time has come.
  I also want to recognize the work of staff who assisted the process: 
Rusty Johnston, Jim Schweiter, and Bob Brauer of the House's National 
Security Committee; Earl Comstock of Senator Steven's staff; Jim 
Sartucci and Carl Bentzel of the Senate's Commerce Committee; and 
Margaret Cummisky of Senator Inouye's staff.
  The full Senate has devoted nearly two full days for a spirited 
dialogue on this legislation. And, the Senate has considered a wide 
range of amendments. The bill is ready for vote on final passage.
  I stand here today on the Senate Floor and proudly ask my colleagues 
to support the Maritime Security Program to guarantee that our Nation 
will have the nucleus of a modern, militarily useful active commercial 
vessels sailing under the American flag.
  This vote will ensure that whenever the United States decides to 
project American forces overseas for either an emergency or national 
defense, there will be a maritime lifeline. I firmly believe that 
Congress has a duty and responsibility to guarantee that a real and 
viable maritime lifeline is maintained and provided.
  We are the world's only remaining superpower and we have global 
interests and responsibilities. A healthy maritime community is 
essential for this role.
  I stand here today representing a bill that enjoys wide and deep 
bipartisan support. It deserves your support and your vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third 
time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S11158]]

  Mr. STEVENS. My information is, this is the last vote. After that 
last courageous vote, I hope that all Members will remember this is 
national defense--national defense--keeping ships available for 
emergencies, saving $100 million a year. I urge the Senate to vote 
positively on this bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] 
is absent due to illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Burns
     Coats
     Grams
     Grassley
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Nickles
     Roth
     Thomas
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Campbell
       
     Heflin
  The bill (H.R. 1350) was passed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, once again I want to commend two of the most 
outstanding bill managers we have in the U.S. Senate, the great Senator 
from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the great Senator from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye. They have done yeoman's work on this bill and bills 
last week. So we are looking for another hard job for them to do that 
we will call on them to do before this week it out. Thank you very much 
for getting this bill passed.

                          ____________________