Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank my colleague for that explanation and for bringing this matter to the Senate's attention. I certainly will join him in seeking a solution to this important national security matter. The only fair solution is to maintain tariff parity for our anti-terrorism allies who compete in this market. I believe my colleague from Missouri would like to make a comment.

Mr. LUGAR. For the benefit of our colleagues, I will ask that two recent articles from the New York Times and one from the Asian Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record at the end of this colloquy. These articles detail the importance of the tuna industry to Mindanao and its strong connection to counter-terrorism efforts.

Mr. LUGAR. As stated at the beginning of this colloquy, in addition to the Philippines, the economies of Thailand and Indonesia may also be impacted by this bill. We are hoping the points expressed in this colloquy will be addressed in conference. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the newspaper articles to which I referred earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President today marks the 60th anniversary of the first day of a battle that is regarded as the turning point of the war in the Pacific and that many historians list as one of the two or three most significant naval battles in recorded history. I am speaking, of course, about June 4, 1942, the beginning of the 3-day naval engagement known as the Battle of Midway. At 10:25 a.m. a Japanese armada including four carriers was steaming east toward Midway Island, 1,150 miles west of Pearl Harbor in the Central Pacific. Its objectives: Invade the strategically situated atoll, seize the U.S. base and airstrip, and (if possible) destroy what remained of our Pacific fleet after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor the preceding December. At 10:30 a.m. three of the four Japanese carriers and their aircraft were a flaming shambles. Moments before, Japanese fighter cover had swatted down torpedo bomber squadrons from the U.S. carriers Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown, the final, fatal mission for 35 of 41 American planes and 68 of 82 pilots and gunners. But their courageous attack had drawn the fighters down to deck level, leaving the skies nearly empty for the 37 U.S. dive bombers who then appeared and, in five fateful minutes, changed the course of history. By nightfall, the fourth Japanese carrier, too, was a blazing wreck, a fitting coda to a day that reversed forever the military fortunes of Imperial Japan. ``So ended,'' wrote Churchill, ``the battle of June 4, rightly regarded as the turning point of the war in the Pacific.'' ``The annals of war at sea,'' he intoned, ``present no more intense, heart-shaking shock'' than Midway and its precursor in the Coral Sea, battles where ``the bravery and self-devotion of the American airmen and sailors and the nerve and skill of their leaders was the foundation of all.'' Few today pause to remember Midway, now six decades past. And I call the Senate's attention to this for it was indeed a turning point in a war that to that point had few bright spots, and which launched us on the road to eventual victory. I'd also like to call attention to one American who's nerve and skill were paramount in leading American forces to this pivotal victory which saw the demise of the four carriers that had attacked Pearl Harbor six months earlier. Raymond Ames Spruance was an unlikely figure, a little- known, soft-spoken, publicity-averse 56-year-old Rear Admiral from Indiana. Yet it is doubtful that any other American in uniform contributed more than this quiet Hoosier to our World War II triumph--a foundation for every blessing of peace and prosperity we now enjoy. When I was 13, I heard Admiral Spruance speak. He was visiting Shortridge High School in Indianapolis, his alma mater and soon to be mine. Only years later did I really understand how important he had been to achieving victory in the Pacific and subsequent victories, including 1945's hard-fought invasion of Iwo Jima. It was Spruance who made the crucial decision at Midway to launch all available aircraft, which led to devastation of the enemy carriers. He then preserved the victory, instinctively resisting Japanese attempts during the next two days to lure the American fleet into a trap. Throughout Spruance's 45-year Navy career, he maintained the unassuming attitude that downplayed his own role at Midway. And, unlike some of his contemporaries, Spruance avoided self-promotion. One consequence was that he forwent levels of recognition accorded others. As you may be aware, near the end of the war, Congress authorized four five-star positions each in the Army and Navy. The new Generals of the Army were George Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower and Henry ``Hap'' Arnold. The first three five-star Admirals were Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Daniel Leahy. But an internal battle raged for months over whether the fourth Fleet Admiral would be the colorful William ``Bull'' Halsey (who was ultimately selected) or his less flamboyant colleague, the victor at Midway. Later, when Congress authorized another five-star post for the ``GI General,'' Omar Bradley, it overlooked creating a fifth Navy five-star opening, which unquestionably would have gone to Bradley's ocean-going counterpart, Raymond Spruance. Among all the War's combat admirals ``there was no one to equal Spruance,'' wrote famed Navy historian Samuel Morison. ``He envied no man, regarded no one as rival, won the respect of all with whom he came in contact, and went ahead in his quiet way winning victories for his country.'' As some of you know, I introduced legislation to correct this oversight. Some of you have joined me in sponsoring S. 508, and I encourage my other colleagues to do the same because what we choose to honor says a great deal about who we are. Like many of the veterans of the Battle of Midway, Raymond Spruance's humility and character stand in contrast to much of what our political and popular culture ``honors'' today. Much of what our political and popular culture ``honors'' today, with celebrity and fortune and swarms of media attention, is the foolish and flighty, the sensational and self- indulgent. Too often, the pursuits made possible by freedom are unworthy of the sacrifices that preserved freedom itself. No one lived the values of freedom and service more fully or nobly, and with less thought of personal fame, than Raymond Spruance. On any list of the great Allied military leaders of World War II, his character and his contributions stand in the very first rank. It is fitting and proper for us now to award him rank commensurate with his character and contributions. When complimented on Midway years after the War, Spruance said, ``There were a hundred Spruances in the Navy. They just happened to pick me for the job.'' Herman Wouk's masterful ``War And Remembrance'' has the best rejoinder, which the author puts in the mouth of a fictional wartime adversary: ``In fact, there was only one Spruance and luck gave him, at a fateful hour, to America.'' In June 1942, all of America drew strength from the victory at Midway. Today, the nation and the Naval service celebrate that victory and we continue to draw strength from the brave contributions of the men who nobly fought 60 years ago and those who there made the ultimate sacrifice as they turned the tide of a very perilous war.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor of S. 1572.

Mr. LUGAR. As I understand the parliamentary situation, time is controlled by Senator Biden and myself for half of the time remaining until 10:30, and Senator Warner of Virginia controls the other half; is that correct?

Mr. LUGAR. Would that be approximately 12 minutes each at this point?

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, last evening in the debate, we had a good discussion of the need for the Senate to affirm through this action today that NATO should be expanded as a general principle. We also established that there ought to be very careful criteria for that expansion and examination of each of the candidates, as opposed to a done deal at the end of the trail, in which the Senate then receives a treaty without that careful examination country by country. I have appreciated the colloquy with the Senator from Virginia, Senator Biden, and myself in which I think we established both of those facts--the desirability for a more robust NATO, and that would include more members, likewise--members that in fact carry their weight. As the Senator from Virginia pointed out, Americans may be involved in an article 5 declaration to defend those countries that would come in. In addition, we would anticipate that they would defend us. Madam President, I point out that we are having this debate at this point very largely because the President of the United States has asked us to have it. Likewise, we have received correspondence from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense pointing out how imperative it is that we take this action to affirm that the United States stands solidly in terms of expansion of NATO and the careful consideration of its membership. The act we discuss today also has money for seven candidates, on the presumption that these are serious candidates, that this money will make a difference in terms of training, interoperability of equipment, the general proposition as partners for peace. These nations have demonstrated great interest in the alliance and therefore deserve our help. We pointed out last evening, in fact, the money was appropriated last December--the money is out there. This is the authorization of the money. Some have asked, is the authorization following too far behind? Our response is, no, if we take action. This is why the President wants this action prior to his taking a very important trip to the summit with President Putin in Russia next week. Madam President, I hope that today we will join in support of the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001 because this bill provides assistance to the nations, as I mentioned. It gives us an opportunity for Congress to affirm our solidarity with our allies and our confidence in the future of the alliance. I point out that our own President, George Bush, gave an important speech last year in Warsaw in which he said: All of Europe's new democracies from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between should have the same chance for security and freedom. He went on to say he believed ``in NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibility that NATO brings.'' The cold war may be over, but the security and welfare of America and Europe are very closely linked, and our common goal must continue to be the building of a Europe which is whole and free. I mentioned in the debate last evening my own visits last September to the three Baltic States--Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania--and Romania, and Bulgaria to visit with leadership about the specific criteria. That visit has been replicated by other Senators, most recently by our Ambassador to NATO, Mr. Burns, who has laid out a very concrete plan for each of those nations to affirm their interest and to give us a basis to judge that interest. I finally point out that NATO is a truly remarkable institution because its members have joined together to assure that the ideals we share--we have a collective, moral, and military strength--are enhanced in the world at a time of the war on terrorism, at a time in which literally the dispute as to whether out of area or out of business has gone by the boards. The war is out of area, by definition. The threats are all over the world. The need for flexibility and for more of us to be involved is apparent. As President Bush pointed out, that means filling in the geography of Europe--Romania and Bulgaria and the southeast part--which is so important as a link not only to Greece and Turkey, our allies, but to the Middle East. The Baltic States were altogether mischaracterized by the former Soviet Union. They were always independent. We reaffirm that is the case. We see this as a cardinal principle of this legislation. Finally, I point out that NATO is the alliance that places us in Europe. We are not a part of the European Union. We are a part of the transatlantic military alliance with headquarters in Brussels, with an American who has been in charge for many years. It is tremendously important. We appreciate Europe, and NATO is the major way in which we indicate that appreciation and participation. The question now is, Should we expand that to countries that have taken on democracy, have taken on defense responsibilities, have shown through the Partnership for Peace their eagerness and their willingness to be with us? My answer is in the affirmative, and I hope the Senate will vote overwhelmingly in favor of this action today that our President be fortified as he proceeds into important diplomacy. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield 1 minute to Mr. Stevens.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, of course, we agree with the Senator from Virginia. That is the purpose of this debate, to draw the attention of this Senate to a momentous decision that is to come. We must examine both armed services and foreign relations, and we pledge to do so, and the criteria of each of the countries. NATO is important. It must succeed. Therefore, we ask support for this resolution our President has asked us to give him. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for the questions as well as the conclusions. I would simply succinctly join my colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in saying that S. 1572, the legislation before us now, endorses the continued enlargement of the NATO alliance and assists potential members in meeting membership criteria. Very clearly, that leaves open the question of whether they meet the criteria, and who is selected, and when that occurs. But the President of the United States, in his Warsaw speech, talked about enlargement. He talked about it, but he gave a grand vision. That was important. Mr. President, before I commence my statement, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cochran be added as a cosponsor of S. 1572.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001 because I believe this legislation makes important contributions to the future of European security and trans- Atlantic relations by endorsing the continued enlargement of the NATO alliance and assisting potential members in meeting membership criteria. Last year, President George Bush delivered a visionary speech in Warsaw Poland on NATO's future. He noted that ``all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom.'' He went on to say that he believed ``. . . in NATO memberships for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings.'' And he concluded that ``we should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.'' Some believe the United States-European relationship should be diminished. I can hardly imagine a more strategically shortsighted or dangerous policy shift by the United States or Europe. Such arguments ignore a basic fact: Europe and America are increasingly intertwined in security, economic, and cultural matters. The cold war may be over, but the security and welfare of America and Europe are closely linked. Our common goal must be to complete the building of a Europe whole and free in strong alliance with the United States of America. Now is not the time to discuss withdrawal. Now is the time to strengthen the NATO alliance. This legislation--the Freedom Consolidation Act--makes important and encouraging strides in that direction. The last round of enlargement was a tremendous first step. The lines of Yalta have begun to recede. Central Europe is not only free but safe. And now, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is time to finish the job and make Europe whole and free. It is my belief that the continued enlargement of NATO is the best means to achieve this goal. President Bush has laid out such a vision and has committed the United States to its implementation. I might add that a reason we are debating this issue at this late hour on a Thursday evening is that the President of the United States very much wants to have this legislation as he goes to a historic summit with President Putin of Russia and as he proceeds on to visits with European allies. The President has not only given a visionary speech in Warsaw, he is about to embark upon an extraordinary trip on behalf of our security and our foreign policy. He has asked us to consider this legislation, and to pass it enthusiastically, to join our colleagues in the House in that endorsement. Continued enlargement provides an opportunity for NATO to be proactive in shaping a stable security framework in Europe. Potential NATO membership has given countries the incentive to accelerate reforms, to peacefully settle disputes, and to increase cooperation. These hopes have been a tremendous driving force of democratization and peace. Those nations who have made the most progress should be rewarded with an invitation to join NATO. Such a move will ensure that NATO's aspirations will continue to spur reform and purge cold war ideologies and dividing lines. While maintaining NATO's high standards, we should invite those nations ready to assume membership responsibilities and contribute to European stability and security to be a part of NATO. If countries such as Slovenia and Slovakia stay the course, they would be among the strongest candidates. Given the importance of stabilizing southern Europe, I also believe we should invite Bulgaria and Romania. I am hopeful they will continue their remarkable progress and become strong members of the alliance. The defining issue will be the Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. They are among the great success stories of Europe's post- Communist transition. Their illegal annexation by the former Soviet Union 60 years ago should not determine Western policy today. If the Baltic States continue to perform and meet our standards, we should bring them in, all of them, at the Prague summit. I have addressed that issue, at least to give my personal views as a Senator, for the last year. I felt it was important, as the Senator from Virginia has pointed out in this debate, for us to consider individually each of these countries, to initiate that debate a long time before the Prague summit or even before the trip our President is to take to visit with President Putin. As the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has pointed out, he has made a number of trips to Europe to visit not only with the aspirants in the first round of NATO enlargement but with the current group. I went to Europe last September for a similar purpose. I made it a point to visit each of the Baltic States to meet with the leadership of those countries, with their military people, as well as their diplomats, and continued on to Romania and Bulgaria for an equally interesting and important visit to enlarge my own understanding of where they stood, what they were doing, what kind of criteria they understood membership required. I visited the NATO headquarters in Brussels in January at the invitation of our Ambassador Burns to address a NATO workshop which included 10 aspiring countries in a roundtable discussion. Of those 10, I have identified 7 that I believe are logical candidates if they fulfill the criteria. But that is a rigorous course. Ambassador Burns, on behalf of this country, has visited each of the countries that I have mentioned recently. He has gone through a rigorous outline of what our anticipations would be. This is not a free ride for any country, and meeting those criteria will take some doing in each of the seven cases that I have cited. This legislation does not make that decision, even if this Senator and others have come to some conclusions about the merits of various countries. That is a debate still ahead of us. I would simply counsel my friends who are interested in this issue and all who have spoken this evening to continue visitation of the countries, to continue encouragement of meeting the criteria, to show interest on behalf of the United States in these countries. Those are the steps we ought to be taking presently, and they will lead to a formal and, I hope, a wise decision, long before there is a final Prague summit and our President makes a commitment, at least of his own resources, on behalf of the United States. NATO's open-door policy toward new members, as established in article 10 of the Washington treaty, is truly fundamental. To retract it would risk undermining the tremendous gains that have been made across the region. The result of a closed-door policy would be the creation of new dividing lines across Europe. Those nations outside might become disillusioned and insecure and thus inclined to adopt the competitive and destabilizing security positions of Europe's past. NATO's decision to enlarge in stages recognizes that not all new applicants are equally ready or equally willing to be security allies, and some states may never be ready. But the maintenance of the open door to future membership will continue to be a powerful motivating force in Europe. NATO has launched a new initiative to expand cooperation and consultation with Russia. From my perspective, NATO enlargement need not be a zero-sum game. One can be a strong supporter of NATO enlargement and of a new United States-Russian strategic partnership, as I am. We need to continue to invest in the promotion of the security and the stability of Russia and the other newly independent states, and it is in the interest of both NATO and Russia for a democratic Russia to emerge and to regularize its cooperation with the alliance. For this reason, I support the Bush administration's efforts to draw Russia closer to NATO, to deal with mutual security concerns in reciprocal fashion, and to support Russia's consolidation of a nonimperialist, peaceful democracy. If NATO is to continue to be an effective organization meeting the security needs of its members, it must play a central role in addressing the major security challenges of our time, which in my judgment are the war on terrorism and the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. That will require NATO to change, and in a very large way. But the alliance has demonstrated in the past that with U.S. leadership, it has the capacity to adapt to new challenges. We must take the next logical step in a world in which terrorist ``Article V'' attacks on our countries can be planned in Germany, financed in Asia, and carried out in the United States. Under these circumstances, old distinctions between ``in'' and ``out of area'' have become meaningless. If Article V threats to our security can come from beyond Europe, NATO must be able to act beyond Europe to meet them. If we cannot organize ourselves to meet this new threat, we will have given the terrorists a huge advantage. There is nothing they would like more than to see Western democracies divided on this key issue. We are now cooperating closely with our European allies. While we don't publicize it for understandable reasons, the security cooperation, the intelligence sharing is unprecedented. Today there are more Europeans on the ground in Afghanistan than Americans. It is Europe, not America, that is going to foot much of the bill for Afghan reconstruction. In those areas, Europeans have been exceptional allies. But I have a sober understanding of where we differ with our allies and the hurdles we need to overcome if we are going to succeed. The Europeans have neglected their defenses. While I detect a growing willingness to try to remedy that, it is not going to be easy so long as their economies are in recession. It would be a historic mistake to let this opportunity to forge a new transatlantic understanding slip through our fingers. America is at war. The threat we face is global and existential. We need allies and coalitions to confront it effectively, and NATO is our premiere military alliance. Therefore, NATO enlargement should be pursued as part of a broader strategic dialog aimed at establishing common transatlantic approaches to meet the key strategic challenges in Europe and around the globe. Fifty years ago, NATO's founders made a political decision that the United States and Europe needed a common strategy to meet common threats. Today we need to make a similar commitment with our allies to complete the vision of a united, free Europe, and to defend our common values and interests in Europe and beyond. President Bush and his administration placed a continued NATO enlargement at the core of the transatlantic agenda. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter sent to leaders of the Senate from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.

Mr. LUGAR. They write, in part, Mr. President: We believe that this bill, which builds on previous congressional acts supportive of enlargement, would reinforce our Nation's commitment to the achievement of freedom, peace, and security in Europe. Passage of the Freedom Consolidation Act would greatly enhance our ability to work with aspirant countries as they prepare to join with NATO and work with us to meet the 21st century's threat to our common security. We must seize this unprecedented opportunity to expand the zone of peace and security to all of Europe. It is time to finish the job and the next step in passage of this important legislation is to act, and to act promptly. Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. May I respond to the distinguished Senator on that point?

Mr. LUGAR. I think the Senator is correct. I add that the actual authorization of money will go to seven of the nine countries.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct that the MAP program refers to nine, and therefore vigilantly we are looking at those criteria. I would further offer my assurance that I plan to work with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee so that hearings will elicit from the administration what the findings have been from this MAP program, and that will have some bearing upon the vote of the Senator for various individuals. My purpose in giving speeches early on this issue--and the distinguished Senator has likewise been doing this--was to make sure the debate was of a better quality than the last time around, when in fact at the summit some decisions were made in what otherwise would be called international horse trading. Granted, criteria had been met, and a lot of debate had occurred, but in fact we are ahead of the game, as we ought to be. I respect the Senator's questions to make certain we are vigilant in getting the facts and evaluating these countries closely.

Mr. LUGAR. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I would join him in paying tribute to Julie Finley, whose hospitality I have enjoyed. It has been an opportunity, as the Senator has suggested, for an educational experience about NATO members and aspirants to NATO. I join the Senator also in his comments about Lord Robertson, who visited this country recently. He spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations and was very candid, as the Senator from Virginia has pointed out, about the obligations of European countries, the lack of lift capacity, the lack of sophisticated communication gear, the lack of the ability to bring in aircraft for specific strikes, the ordnance for this equipment. These are recognized problems. This debate, and other ways we can focus on NATO, are very important in sharpening our own view of the alliance and of the possibilities of this alliance in our mutual fight against terrorism. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague. On our side of the argument, I yield back the time allotted to Senator Biden and to myself.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, Chafee, Leahy, Hagel, Gordon Smith, Cochran, Brownback, and Jeffords in introducing the Cultural Bridges Act of 2002. Put simply, our bill authorizes funding for international student exchange programs between the United States and countries of the Islamic world. The bill authorizes $20 million to establish a secondary school level student exchange program that would bring students from the Islamic world to America in order to foster greater understanding and tolerance. It also authorizes an additional $75 million to existing student and foreign-exchange programs such as the Congress-Bundestag Program, Fulbright Scholarships, etc. The purpose is to foster mutual respect between our peoples and a greater understanding of the differences and similarities between the cultures. One of the lessons learned in recent months is that the United States needs to create more effective tools of public diplomacy. The most striking example of this was a December 2000-January 2001 Gallup Poll in nine predominantly Muslim states that revealed very strong anti-American attitudes in a majority of the countries. There are no more effective means to spread American values and influence and to create goodwill than international student exchanges. As a result, I have concluded it is in U.S. national security interests to create an exchange program focused on Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Last year only 10 percent of participants in various State Department student and cultural exchange programs came from Islamic countries outside the former Soviet Union. Our new program will bring students aged 15 to 17 to attend high school and live with an American family for a year. Recruitment and selection of participants will be conducted on a competitive basis designed to ensure geographic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. The legislation is based on the successful Future Leaders Exchange Program, FLEX, for high school students in the former Soviet Union. The new exchange program with Islamic states would be administered by the Department of State and will utilize similar guidelines and regulations established for the FLEX Program and utilize organizations experienced in such exchanges. A study of Russian FLEX alumni concluded that they are more open to and accepting of Western values, democratic ideals and foreign interaction than other students of the same age. In addition to the importance of increasing understanding between the United States and Islamic countries, we must also appreciate and address the continuing threat of terrorism. Our bill requires all students and visitors participating in programs authorized in this legislation to comply with the immigration procedures in the USA PATRIOT Act. Students will travel to the United States under J-visas. I am pleased our legislation has garnered the support of so many non- governmental organizations involved in the implementation and management of student and cultural exchanges. As the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange wrote in their letter of April 2: ``Winning the war on terrorism will demand more than just military prowess. It will require us to engage the peoples of the Islamic world about our society and values if we are to forge the mutual understanding and respect that will be the basis of peaceful, productive relationships. As September 11 and its aftermath makes clear, our public diplomacy has fallen short.'' The Alliance concludes by saying that the ``. . . legislation is the right bill at the right time.'' In addition to the Alliance, we have also received letters of support from: the AFS Intercultural Programs USA, the Academy for Educational Development, the American Councils for International Education, the American Institute for Foreign Study, the Institute of International Education, the National Council for International Visitors, Sister Cities International, World Learning, the World Study Group, and the America-Mideast Educational and Training Services. I understand the administration has reviewed our legislation and indicated that they would support its passage, pending the allocation of necessary resources. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join Senator Kennedy, our cosponsors and I in ensuring swift passage of this timely and important bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, Chafee, Leahy, Hagel, Gordon Smith, Cochran, Brownback, and Jeffords in introducing the Cultural Bridges Act of 2002. Put simply, our bill authorizes funding for international student exchange programs between the United States and countries of the Islamic world. The bill authorizes $20 million to establish a secondary school level student exchange program that would bring students from the Islamic world to America in order to foster greater understanding and tolerance. It also authorizes an additional $75 million to existing student and foreign-exchange programs such as the Congress-Bundestag Program, Fulbright Scholarships, etc. The purpose is to foster mutual respect between our peoples and a greater understanding of the differences and similarities between the cultures. One of the lessons learned in recent months is that the United States needs to create more effective tools of public diplomacy. The most striking example of this was a December 2000-January 2001 Gallup Poll in nine predominantly Muslim states that revealed very strong anti-American attitudes in a majority of the countries. There are no more effective means to spread American values and influence and to create goodwill than international student exchanges. As a result, I have concluded it is in U.S. national security interests to create an exchange program focused on Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Last year only 10 percent of participants in various State Department student and cultural exchange programs came from Islamic countries outside the former Soviet Union. Our new program will bring students aged 15 to 17 to attend high school and live with an American family for a year. Recruitment and selection of participants will be conducted on a competitive basis designed to ensure geographic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. The legislation is based on the successful Future Leaders Exchange Program, FLEX, for high school students in the former Soviet Union. The new exchange program with Islamic states would be administered by the Department of State and will utilize similar guidelines and regulations established for the FLEX Program and utilize organizations experienced in such exchanges. A study of Russian FLEX alumni concluded that they are more open to and accepting of Western values, democratic ideals and foreign interaction than other students of the same age. In addition to the importance of increasing understanding between the United States and Islamic countries, we must also appreciate and address the continuing threat of terrorism. Our bill requires all students and visitors participating in programs authorized in this legislation to comply with the immigration procedures in the USA PATRIOT Act. Students will travel to the United States under J-visas. I am pleased our legislation has garnered the support of so many non- governmental organizations involved in the implementation and management of student and cultural exchanges. As the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange wrote in their letter of April 2: ``Winning the war on terrorism will demand more than just military prowess. It will require us to engage the peoples of the Islamic world about our society and values if we are to forge the mutual understanding and respect that will be the basis of peaceful, productive relationships. As September 11 and its aftermath makes clear, our public diplomacy has fallen short.'' The Alliance concludes by saying that the ``. . . legislation is the right bill at the right time.'' In addition to the Alliance, we have also received letters of support from: the AFS Intercultural Programs USA, the Academy for Educational Development, the American Councils for International Education, the American Institute for Foreign Study, the Institute of International Education, the National Council for International Visitors, Sister Cities International, World Learning, the World Study Group, and the America-Mideast Educational and Training Services. I understand the administration has reviewed our legislation and indicated that they would support its passage, pending the allocation of necessary resources. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join Senator Kennedy, our cosponsors and I in ensuring swift passage of this timely and important bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are awaiting the next speaker in the sequence that the Chair has been given; therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time to be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may require.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, yesterday, during the course of the debate, I pointed out that ever since the conference report came to the other body and the House of Representatives passed that conference report, there has been a reevaluation of the amount of money that the bill we are now looking at would spend. Frequently in the past, we have talked about the budget of a year ago, allocating $73.5 billion over a 10-year period of time for farm legislation. In fact, when we commenced the conference--that is, the Senate committee with our House conferees--the evaluation of the bill the Senate had passed was that it was $79.5--$6 billion too much--with the action we took here on the Senate floor. So in the early days of that conference, the $79.5 billion that was estimated for our product had to be scaled down by $6 billion. That came out of many programs. But in due course it was achieved, so that we could at least confer with our House friends on the basis of both of us having a $73.5 billion product. I dwell on that because much has been made of $73.5 billion of additional spending beyond the so-called baseline. The baseline is a euphemism for the totality of farm programs that continue on--ones that were provided by Freedom to Farm, and some were provided by other farm bills in the past; in other words, a pretty large aggregate of farm spending. That baseline was frequently estimated in many speeches during this debate at about $100 billion. So in rough figures, the debate started with the thought that we would have about $100 billion of baseline--all the programs that continue on and an additional $73.5 billion of spending--and that would occur on a 10-year basis at $173.5 billion. Now we know the $73.5 billion has now been evaluated as $82.8 billion, so it is up $9.3 billion. The reason is that the Congressional Budget Office, taking a look at our assumptions--and the assumptions came down principally to the price of row crops--corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and rice. The estimates that were in our bill were that the prices of those row crops would be higher than CBO's, and the experts they have brought in now believe that will be the case--in essence, that a downward trend of prices is continuing. So since we are now providing much higher target prices or, in fact, reinstating those in a countercyclical program, and at slightly higher loan rates, since the base market prices are expected to be much lower, the gap is larger; thus, the taxpayer input into the farm bill. So we have moved from $73.5 billion to $82.8 billion. Now comes the news that the baseline likewise has been reevaluated by the Congressional Budget Office. I have gone back to the drawing board, and the baseline was not exactly $100 billion. Our staff, by our best calculations, finds that it was $97.6 billion. So we had $2.4 billion there that we had not expected. That is the good news. But the bad news is the new baseline is $107.155 billion. That is roughly $9.5 billion higher. So our assumption, as we start this conference, that we had $100 billion of baseline and $73.5 billion of new spending--thus, $173.5 billion--is in fact now $82.819 billion. That is the new situation for the new spending and a baseline of $107.155 billion, for a grand total now of $189.974 billion, or roughly $190 billion. Now, that is a lot more money, Mr. President. That $173.5 billion has been transformed, even in the course of this debate on the Senate floor, up to $190 billion--a change of $16.5 billion, just for the same bill, with no change in any of the stipulations. Mr. President, I made a prediction yesterday--and many have ratified that in their remarks, and some disagree with it--that we are likely, in fact, to see CBO look at the same programs year after year and reevaluate them higher--both baseline and new programs. Why? Because this farm bill stimulates overproduction. It does nothing with regard to our trade situation. We have had extraordinary speeches in which some have said we are really fouling up the waters if we hope to ever get more exports to deal with other countries in some sort of diplomatic way, to gain entry for our crops, which we certainly need to do. But others have said, listen here, this is an American bill, this is not a French bill, or an English bill, or a Canadian bill and, by golly, it doesn't make any difference what they think about it. Fair enough. But, of course, it does, because we are hoping to negotiate with these countries for entry for our exports. At some point, perhaps we will be diplomatically successful. Every farmer prays that will be the case. But it is certainly not the case for the moment. As a result, the supplies continue to pile up. Why? Because this bill is very generous to the row crops in offering incentives to plant more and to take advantage of the higher loan rates and the higher target price. As a result, not only will there be surprises that have come out on the floor in the last 2 days in which something that used to be $173.5 billion is now $190 billion of expenditures, but those figures are likely to escalate further each of the 6 years of the duration of this bill, unless amended. Now, Mr. President, at some point, Senators may say this is simply too much. I have raised the question, as have others, that the $15 billion that is spent on additional reestimates of what we have done is money that might have been spent on health care--either reforming Medicare, for prescription drugs for the elderly, for shoring up Social Security, or for education programs that come up even in this debate. The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, decried the lack of attention, really, to the President's suggestion to leave no child behind and the funding needed for that. I once again point out that we find it, I suppose, possible to discuss farm bills in a total vacuum, but without realization of the war, homeland defense, or the basic issues in most of our campaigns, there is almost an obsession with spending this money--all of it. Without being redundant, I point out, as the Chair and others have heard, that if, in fact, this money were to go to small farmers, medium-size farmers, even fairly large farmers who are in danger of going out of business, a case could be made for some of it. But the fact is that in the row crop situation--and this is roughly 60 to 70 percent of all the moneys, even after you talk about conservation, research, and the small crops, and so forth; that the basic row crops is roughly 60 to 70 percent of the money and two-thirds of that money goes to just 10 percent of the farmers--it is an inescapable 60 percent, three-fifths of all the farmers in the country do not get the row crop money at all, and that is where almost all the increases have come from in the Congressional Budget Office reevaluation. It is that part of the program that, in fact, has attracted most of the money, has concentrated it on relatively few farmers, and even when the Senate passed a fairly modest cap that no individual farmer should receive more than $275,000 each year--not in the total of the farm bill, but each year--there were loud protests from our House colleagues. As a result, that was scrapped. Through the two- or three- entity rule or all the various rules, certificates, what have you, the net effect is there are no limits. If, in fact, you are an ingenious farmer and a big farmer, this is a bonanza. Already bankers have sent in testimony in behalf of this and said things ought to be in pretty good shape for the next 6 years, in terms of the collateral for loans because land values escalate, and that is the basic collateral, unless you are one of 42 percent of farmers who rent and unless, in fact, you are a small farmer which no amount of money from a country banker is likely to resuscitate, and certainly not this bill. After one bromide after another about how it brings stability, certainty, and so forth to American farmers, I say a few American farmers--very few, as a matter of fact--will do very well. What I find baffling is how this body, with these facts squarely in front of us--established now as we know by the Environmental Working Group Web site farm by farm, county by county so there is incontrovertible evidence of exactly who gets what and in what proportion, what percentage, State by State--it is not speculation any longer--to the dollar, year by year, even updated for 2001 now in a recent update of the site--still Senators hue to the thought that somehow Freedom to Farm failed and this bill in front of us now will make an enormous difference for most farmers in the country. My own view is that it will not. In fact, I believe most farmers in the country will be hurt. These speeches that I give on the floor I give in my home State. Despite some of the rhetoric in which people have talked about people in skyscrapers writing articles, people who have never seen a combine, never seen a cow--I will testify I have seen a combine, I have seen a cow, I have even seen a farm, even own one, even tried to deal with these programs year by year so that I understand exactly what happens to farmers as a product of what we do. Mr. President, I simply want to offer as one explanation of what we are doing a remarkably timely article that appeared in the Washington Post this morning. This is not the Washington Post editorial writers or someone remote from farming, but it is a gifted economist, Robert Samuelson, who has long written for Time, Newsweek, and others. I quote portions of what Samuelson says because I think they are appropriate for our debate. Samuelson says: Farm subsidies are a splendid example of old-fashioned politics: using public money to buy votes. It's the quest for popularity and power, and not campaign contributions, that matters. Under the new bill, the subsidies are estimated to cost almost $200 billion over the next decade. . . . Samuelson misses that, according to my calculation, by $10 billion. We are now up to $190 billion, but with the meter still ticking. If farm prices (mainly for wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton) are lower than expected, the subsidies will be higher. He is right on that point. Similarly, higher farm prices would mean lower subsidies. The point is to stabilize farm incomes--to prop them up in periods of low prices and thereby save ``family farming.'' The subsidies have existed in one form or another for almost 70 years, and there's no evidence that they work. Farmers and farm workers accounted for 21 percent of the labor force in 1929, before the New Deal's first agriculture legislation. Their share today is about 2 percent, even though the amount of land in farming is almost the same (1 billion acres in 1931, 932 million in 1997). Bigger tractors, more fertilizer and better seed varieties and cultivation methods have promoted farm consolidation and larger harvests. In the 1940s, American farmers grew an average of 34 bushels of corn per acre; in 2001, the average was four times that, 137 bushels an acre. Government subsidies simply haven't been able to overcome the pressures for bigger and more efficient farms. Indeed, the subsidies have perverse side effects. Higher subsidies boost land values, because (like crops) they add to the land's cash-producing potential. In turn, higher land prices and rentals mean higher costs for new farmers. Similarly, farm subsidies stimulate production, which depresses prices. The combination of higher costs and lower prices squeeze farm incomes. The subsidies also hamper efforts to open foreign markets. Precisely because American farmers are so productive, they need exports to absorb their surpluses. But foreign markets are heavily protected by subsidies and high tariffs, because farmers almost everywhere are a politically favored group. According to a recent U.S. Agriculture Department study, the average food tariff around the world is now 62 percent. It's hard to convince other countries to cut their subsidies and tariffs if we won't cut our own. The survival of farm subsidies, despite their huge shortcomings, partly reflects political inertia. Once extended, government benefits are hard to withdraw. It would seem ``unfair,'' and farmers--despite constant complaining about details--have become dependent on subsidies. The subsidies also endure because they're protected by the ``iron triangle'' of congressional committees, interest groups and government agencies. Here, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Without farm programs, all would be much less important. To sustain their power, farm legislators and lobbies ``are willing to trade their votes for almost anything,'' says economist David Orden, of Virginia Tech, a longtime student of farm politics. But what increasingly protects farm subsidies is political competition. With Congress split--and control of the House and Senate hanging on a few races--swing voters must be courted. Both parties are in a bidding war. The result is much bipartisan hypocrisy. Indeed. Each one of us has been involved in political campaigns, and we will be involved in some more. We are aware of that situation. So is the public. I cannot believe the public hearing this debate, understanding the escalation of the monies that have been required to accommodate the long list of additional crops, groups and farm entities in American life, will not, in fact, find the whole situation to be very disturbing. As Samuelson concludes, at least the good thing is that it is democracy at work; people appealing to voters. What each one of us, I suspect, will have to finally determine is who the voters are. I submit that out in America there are a lot of people who are very sympathetic with regard to American agriculture, and many of them are in this Senate. But I also suggest that the American people want us to determine some priorities, that we have a responsibility as trustees of the Public Treasury, and as trustees of a good number of things in American life, to have some wisdom and some sense of justice with regard to all of this. This is why I will vote against the conference report, because I believe it has reached outrageous proportions in terms of expense. It narrowly focuses most of these new outrageous expenses on a relatively few farmers. It will depress prices almost certainly and thus increase the cost of the whole enterprise year by year. It is destructive of relationships abroad that are necessary if we are to export more and, as a matter of fact, it really needs to be revised very substantially. Fortunately, we have a farm bill that does continue for several more months. It has been criticized routinely, but I noted two things in the course of the debate today, and in a bipartisan way, as I mentioned. The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, mentioned that due to very technical aspects of payments--the Senator stated, very gifted as he analyzed the bill and understands it--many farmers who are expecting to get money this year will be disappointed. The checks will be spaced out in various increments. The Senator from Kansas was suggesting that perhaps it would have been in the better interest of most farmers to have a supplemental bill that costs much less than the new bill we are talking about, and to have provided the money as anticipated. Now, the Senator did not advocate another supplemental bill, but if my analysis is correct, others will. And why not? Why should this be the final farm debate of the year if in fact more need and difficulty can be found, as it clearly will be in the administration of this bill should it pass? There will be a number of people who will need to be employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hundreds of hours will be spent by ordinary farmers figuring out whether they take the base of the past or the base of a recent year's yield, and how to apply for all of this. We have quite a turmoil ahead of us, and the money does not necessarily flow in that process. The Senator from Kansas recognized that and described it rather acutely. In addition to that, the distinguished chairman of our committee has mentioned he might wish to call a meeting of the Agriculture Committee next week to mark up disaster assistance legislation, maybe in the order of $2.4 billion. I made the prediction yesterday, despite all of the certainty, finality, and the thought that this does it as opposed to Freedom to Farm, we are very likely going to have two debates every year in addition: One, for a supplemental, a group, wherever it may be in our society, who believes that somehow things did not work out well for them and; secondly, disasters, weather disasters, health disasters, whatever may have happened in the appropriations process. I simply ask of Senators, once again, how much and how long does this process continue? I trust there will not be any further reestimates by CBO even in the course of this afternoon. The shock of going from $173.5 billion to $190 billion during the course of this debate should be substantial. I hope that both at USDA, at the White House, as well as in this Senate, people are evaluating the sums of money that are now involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. We would be pleased to give 20 minutes of our time to Senator Harkin so that speakers can be accommodated.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senators from Iowa and Mississippi. Mr. President, the 1996 farm bill contained a provision which led to serious disruption in the delivery of conservation programs. Specifically, the 1996 act placed a cap on the transfers of Commodity Credit Corporation funds to other government entities. Is the distinguished Senator from Iowa aware of the so called ``section 11 cap?''