Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for more than 10 minutes.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I enjoyed the opportunity last week in Brussels, Belgium, to address the permanent representatives to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, on the subject of the Alliance's forthcoming summit in Prague next November, as well as the likely agenda that will include the issues of NATO enlargement and Russia-NATO cooperation. Perhaps more importantly, I was asked to consider and discuss with the Ambassadors of NATO the Alliance's future 3, 5, and 10 years out and to assess the impact of the events of September 11 and the consequent war on terrorism with the future role of NATO. These are the comments I made on that occasion. There are moments in history when world events suddenly allow us to see the challenges facing our societies with a degree of clarity previously unimaginable. The events of September 11 have created one of those rare moments. We can see clearly the challenges we face and now confront and what needs to be done. September 11 forced Americans to recognize that the United States is exposed to an existential threat from terrorism and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. Meeting that threat is the premier security challenge of our time. There is a clear and present danger that terrorists will gain the capability to carry out catastrophic attacks on Europe and the United States using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. In 1996, I made, the Chair will recall, an unsuccessful bid for the Presidency of the United States. Three of my campaign television ads on that occasion, widely criticized for being farfetched and grossly alarming, depicted a mushroom cloud and warned of the existential threat posed by the growing dangers of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist groups. I argued that the next President should be selected on the basis of being able to meet that challenge. Recently, those ads have been replayed on national television and are viewed from a different perspective. The images of those planes crashing into the World Trade Center on September 11 will remain with us all for some time to come. We might not have been able to prevent the attacks of September 11, but we can draw the right lessons from those events now, and one of those lessons is just how vulnerable our societies are to such attacks. September 11 has destroyed many myths. One of those was the belief that the West was no longer threatened after the collapse of communism and our victory in the cold war, and perhaps nowhere was that myth stronger than in the United States where many Americans believed that America's strength made us invulnerable. We know now we are all vulnerable--Americans and Europeans. The terrorists seek massive impact through indiscriminate killing of people and destruction of institutions, historical symbols, and the basic fabric of our societies. The next attack, however, could just as easily be in London, Paris, or Berlin as in Washington, and it could, or is even likely to, involve weapons or materials of mass destruction. The sober reality is that the danger of Americans and Europeans being killed today at work or at home is perhaps greater than at any time in recent history. Indeed, the threat we face today may be just as existential as the one we faced during the cold war since it is increasingly likely to involve the use of weapons of mass destruction against our societies. We are again at one of those moments when we must look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether we as leaders are prepared to draw the right conclusions and do what we can now to reduce that threat or whether it will take another, even deadlier, attack to force us into action. Each of us recognizes that the war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction must be fought on many fronts--at home and abroad--and it must be fought with many tools--political, economic, and military. President Bush is seeking to lead a global coalition in a global war to root out terrorist cells and stop nation states from harboring terrorists. The flip side of this policy is one that I have spent a lot of time thinking about; namely, the urgent need to extend the war on terrorism to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Al-Qaida-like terrorists will use NBC weapons if they can obtain them. Our task can be succinctly stated: Together we must keep the world's most dangerous technologies out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people. The events of September 11 and the subsequent public discovery of al-Qaida's methods, capabilities, and intentions have finally brought the vulnerability of our countries to the forefront. The terrorists have demonstrated suicidal tendencies and are beyond deterrence. We must anticipate they will use weapons of mass destruction in NATO countries if allowed that opportunity. Without oversimplifying the motivations of terrorists in the past, it appears that most acts of terror attempted to bring about change in a regime or change in governance or status in a community or state. Usually, the terrorists made demands that could be negotiated or accommodated. The targets were selected to create and increase pressure for change. In contrast, the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the United States were planned to kill thousands of people indiscriminately. There were no demands for change or negotiation. Osama bin Laden was filmed conversing about results of the attack which exceeded his earlier predictions of destruction. Massive destruction of institutions, wealth, national morale, and innocent people was clearly his objective. Over 3,000 people from a host of countries perished. Recent economic estimates indicate $60 billion of loss to the United States economy from all facets of the September 11 attacks and the potential loss of over 1.6 million jobs. Horrible as these results have been, military experts have written about the exponential expansion of those losses had the al-Qaida terrorists used weapons of mass destruction. The minimum standard for victory in this kind of war is the prevention of any of the individual terrorists or terrorist cells from obtaining weapons or materials of mass destruction. The current war effort in Afghanistan is destroying the Afghan-based al-Qaida network and the Taliban regime. The campaign is also designed to demonstrate that governments that are hosts to terrorists face retribution. But as individual NATO countries prosecute this war, NATO must pay much more attention to the other side of the equation--that is, making certain that all weapons and materials of mass destruction are identified, continuously guarded, and systematically destroyed. Unfortunately, beyond Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union, Nunn-Lugar-style cooperative threat reduction programs aimed at non-proliferation do not exist. They must now be created on a global scale, with counter-terrorism joining counter-proliferation as our primary objectives. Today we lack even minimal international confidence about many weapons programs, including the number of weapons or amounts of materials produced, the storage procedures employed, and production or destruction programs. NATO allies must join with the United States to change this situation. We need to join together to restate the terms of minimal victory in the war against terrorism we are currently fighting--to wit, that every nation that has weapons and materials of mass destruction must account for what it has, spend its own money or obtain international technical and financial resources to safely secure what it has, and pledge that no other nation, cell or cause will be allowed access to or use of these weapons or materials. Some nations, after witnessing the bombing of Afghanistan and the destruction of the Taliban government, may decide to proceed along a cooperative path of accountability regarding their weapons and materials of mass destruction. But other states may decide to test the U.S. will and staying power. Such testing will be less likely if the NATO allies stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. in pursuing such a counter-terrorism policy. The precise replication of the Nunn-Lugar program will not be possible everywhere, but a satisfactory level of accountability, transparency and safety can and must be established in every nation with a weapons of mass destruction program. When such nations resist such accountability, or their governments make their territory available to terrorists who are seeking weapons of mass destruction, then NATO nations should be prepared to join with the U.S. to use force as well as all diplomatic and economic tools at their collective disposal. I do not mention the use of military force lightly or as a passing comment. The use of military force could mean war against a nation state remote from Europe or North America. This awesome contingency requires the utmost in clarity now. Without being redundant, let me describe the basic elements of such a strategy even more explicitly. NATO should list all nation states which now house terrorist cells, voluntarily or involuntarily. The list should be supplemented with a map which illustrates to all of our citizens the location of these states, and how large the world is. Through intelligence sharing, termination of illicit financial channels, support of local police work, diplomacy, and public information, NATO and a broader coalition of nations fighting terrorism will seek to root out each cell in a comprehensive manner for years to come and keep a public record of success that the world can observe and measure. If we are diligent and determined, we will end most terrorist possibilities. Perhaps most importantly, we will draw up a second list that will contain all of the states that have materials, programs, and/or weapons of mass destruction. We will demand that each of these nation states account for all of the materials, programs, and weapons in a manner which is internationally verifiable. We will demand that all such weapons and materials be made secure from theft or threat of proliferation using the funds of that nation state and supplemented by international funds if required. We will work with each nation state to formulate programs of continuing accountability and destruction which may be of mutual benefit to the safety of citizens in the host state as well as the international community. The latter will be a finite list, and success in the war against terrorism will not be achieved until all nations on that list have complied with these standards. The Nunn-Lugar program has demonstrated that extraordinary international relationships are possible to improve controls over weapons of mass destruction. Programs similar to the Nunn-Lugar program should be established in each of the countries in the coalition against terrorism that wishes to work with the United States and hopefully its NATO allies on safe storage, accountability and planned destruction. If these remarks had been delivered before September 11, I would now offer some eloquent thoughts about the importance of continuing NATO enlargement and of trying to build a cooperative NATO-Russian relationship. In a speech last summer preceding the remarkable call by President Bush in Warsaw for a NATO which stretched from the Baltics to the Black Sea, I listed Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Bulgaria as strong candidates for membership consideration. I visited five of these countries last summer to encourage continuing progress in meeting the criteria for joining the Alliance. After ten years of hands-on experience in working with Russian political, military, and scientific leaders to carefully secure and to destroy materials and weapons of mass destruction in cooperative threat reduction programs, I anticipate that a new NATO-Russian relationship could be of enormous benefit in meeting the dangerous challenges which we must now confront together. In many ways, September 11 has strengthened my conviction that both of these efforts are critical. But they can no longer be our only major priorities. As important as they are, neither NATO enlargement nor NATO-Russia cooperation is the most critical issue facing our nations today. That issue is the war on terrorism. NATO has to decide whether it wants to participate in this war. It has to decide whether it wants to be relevant in addressing the major security challenge of our day. Those of us who have been the most stalwart proponents of enlargement in the past have an obligation to point out that, as important as NATO enlargement remains, the major security challenge we face today is the intersection of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. If we fail to defend our societies from a major terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction, we and the Alliance will have failed in the most fundamental sense of defending our nations and our way of life--and ultimately no one will care what NATO did or did not accomplish on enlargement at the Prague summit in November this year. That's why the Alliance must fundamentally rethink its role in the world in the wake of September 11. At the Washington summit in the spring of 1999, NATO heads of state made a bold statement. They stated that they wanted NATO to be as relevant to the threats of the next 50 years as it was to the threats of the past five decades. The Alliance invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history in response to September 11. But, NATO itself has only played a limited, largely political and symbolic role in the war against terrorism. To some degree, Washington's reluctance to turn to NATO was tied to the fact that the U.S. had to scramble to put together a military response involving logistics, basing and special forces quickly--and it was easier to do that ourselves. Since it was the U.S. itself that was attacked, we were highly motivated to assume the lion's share of burden of the military role of the war on terrorism and we had the capability to do so. But U.S. reticence to turn to NATO was also tied to other facts. Some Americans have lost confidence in the Alliance. Years of cuts in defense spending and failure to meet pledge after pledge to improve European military capabilities has left some Americans with doubts as to what our allies could realistically contribute. Rightly or wrongly, the legacy of Kosovo has reinforced the concern that NATO is not up to the job of fighting a modern war. The U.S. did have confidence in a select group of individual allies. But it did not have confidence in the institution that is NATO. The fact that some military leaders of NATO's leading power didn't want to use the Alliance it has led for half a century is a worrying sign. Some in Washington did suggest to the Administration that it could and should be more creative in involving NATO. Senator Joseph Biden and I, for example, wrote an ``op-ed'' suggesting a number of tasks the Alliance could assume in the war on terrorism. But I am not here to second-guess the President and his national security team on these issues. Whether we should have used NATO more is a question best left to future historians. The strategy the U.S. employed in Afghanistan worked, and I congratulate the Administration for that success. The key issue is: where do we go from here? Will we--Americans and Europeans--now decide to prepare NATO for the next stages in the war against terrorism? If not, how should we organize outside of NATO to meet the military challenges of the war on terrorism? What do we want NATO to look like in three to five years? How do we launch that process between now and the Prague summit next November? We will not find a single American answer to these questions. Indeed, as I listen to the administration and my colleagues around Washington, I hear very different views. One school of thought holds that NATO should simply remain the guarantor of peace in Europe. With successful integration of all of Central and Eastern Europe into the Alliance, they see NATO's next priority as trying to integrate Russia and Ukraine into European security via the new NATO-Russia Council. They accept the fact that NATO is likely to become more and more a political organization such as the OSCE but one with at least some military muscle. They consider any attempt to give the Alliance a military role beyond Europe ``a bridge too far.'' If all NATO does is keep the peace in an increasingly secure Europe, that's enough. A second school thinks NATO as it is currently constituted is about the best we can do. It does not want to take a big leap forward either with regard to NATO cooperation with Russia or with respect to new missions such as a war against terrorism. This school would be willing to enlarge to some additional countries but is much more cautious about NATO-Russia cooperation. It is willing to work with allies on future missions, but on an ad hoc basis and not as an Alliance, lest a NATO framework create ``war by committee'' and coalition ``drag'' on the prosecution of hostilities. It prefers a division of labor whereby the U.S. focuses on the big wars and leaves peacekeeping in and around Europe to the Europeans. A third way of thinking about NATO is to see it as the natural defense arm of the trans-Atlantic community and the institution we should turn to for help in meeting new challenges such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. With Europe increasingly secure, the Alliance needs to be ``retooled'' so that it can handle the most critical threats to our security. If that means it has to go beyond Europe in the future, so be it. This last way of thinking about NATO's future is closest to my own for several reasons. First, I have always had a problem with the ``division of labor'' argument that assumes the U.S. will handle the big wars outside of Europe and lets Europeans take care of the small wars within Europe. It presupposes that the U.S. has less interest in Europe and that Europeans have less interests in the rest of the world. Both are wrong. We have interests in Europe and Europeans have interests in the rest of the world--and we should be trying to tackle them together. Second, the U.S. needs a military alliance with Europe to confront effectively problems such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We cannot do it on an ad hoc basis. We were willing to proceed more or less alone in Afghanistan. But we might not be so inclined next time, depending on the circumstances. What if the next attack is on Europe-- or on America and Europe simultaneously? The model used in Afghanistan would not work in those scenarios. Americans expect our closest allies to fight with us in this war on terrorism--and they expect our leaders to come up with a structure that allows us to do so promptly and successfully. Third, the problem we faced in Kosovo, and the problems we are encountering with respect to developing adequate military capabilities to meet the new threats, do not lead me to conclude that the answer is to reduce NATO to a purely political role. Rather, they are arguments to expand our efforts to fix capability problems so that NATO can operate more effectively in the future. Americans do not want to carry the entire military burden of the war on terrorism by themselves. Nor should we. We want allies to share the burden. The last attack may have been unique in that regard. We were shocked by attacks on our homeland. The U.S. was prepared to respond immediately and to do most of the work itself. But what if the next attack is on Brussels, or on France and the U.S. at the same time? Finally, some of my critics have said: Senator, that is a great idea but it simply is not ``doable.'' And it would be a mistake even to try because you might fail and that would embarrass President Bush and hurt the Alliance. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. and Europe--some of the richest and most advanced countries in the world--are incapable of organizing themselves to come up with an effective military alliance to fight this new threat. When NATO was founded, there were those who said it would be impossible to have a common strategy toward the Soviet Union. And in early 1993 when I delivered my first speech calling for NATO not only to enlarge but to prepare for substantial ``out of area'' activities, many people told me that what I was proposing ran the risk of destroying the Alliance. Those of us who believed in NATO enlargement stuck to our guns. We now have three new Permanent Representatives at NATO Headquarters, and a much more vital NATO as a result. My view can be easily summarized. America is at war and feels more vulnerable than at any time since the end of the cold war and perhaps since World War II. The threat we face is global and existential. We need allies and alliances to confront it effectively. Those alliances can no longer be circumscribed by artificial geographic boundaries. All of America's alliances are going to be reviewed and recast in light of this new challenge, including NATO. If NATO is not up to the challenge of becoming effective in the new war against terrorism, then our political leaders may be inclined to search for something else that will answer this need. I believe that September 11 opened an enormous opportunity to revitalize the trans-Atlantic relationship. It would be a mistake to let this opportunity slip through our fingers. Neither side of the Atlantic has thus far grasped that opportunity fully. It is a time to think big, not small. It is a time when our proposals should not be measured by what we think is ``doable'' but rather shaped by what needs to be done to meet the new existential threat we face. In the early 1990s we needed to make the leap from NATO defending Western Europe to the Alliance assuming responsibility for the continent as a whole. Today we must make a further leap and recognize that, in a world in which terrorist threats can be planned in Germany, financed in Asia, and carried out in the United States, old distinctions between ``in'' and ``out of area'' have become utterly meaningless. Indeed, given the global nature of terrorism, boundaries and other geographical distinctions are without relevance. At NATO's founding on April 4, 1949, President Harry S Truman described the creation of the Alliance as a neighborly act taken by countries conscious of a shared heritage and common values, as democracies determined to defend themselves against the threat they faced. Those same values that Truman talked about defending in 1949 are under attack today, but this time from a very different source. In 1949, President Truman went on to say that the Washington Treaty was a very simple document, but one that might have prevented two world wars had it been in existence in 1914 or 1939. Protecting Western Europe, he opined, was an important step toward creating peace in the world. And he predicted that the positive impact of NATO would be felt beyond its borders and throughout the World. Those words strike me as prescient today. Truman was right. NATO prevented war in Europe for 50 years. It is now in the process of making all of Europe safe and secure and of building a new relationship with Russia. That, in itself, is a remarkable accomplishment. But if NATO does not help tackle the most pressing security threat to our countries today--a threat I believe is existential because it involves the threat of weapons of mass destruction--it will cease to be the premier alliance it has been and will become increasingly marginal. That is why NATO's agenda for Prague has to be both broadened--and integrated. While NATO enlargement and deepened NATO-Russia cooperation will be central to the summit's agenda, they must now be complemented by a plan to translate the fighting of terrorism into one of NATO's central military missions. NATO enlargement and NATO-Russia cooperation should be pursued in a way that strengthens, not weakens, that agenda. This means that new members must be willing and able to sign up to new NATO requirements in this area, and that the new NATO-Russia Council must be structured in a way that strongly supports the Alliance in undertaking such new military tasks. To leave NATO focused solely on defending the peace in Europe from the old threats would be to reduce it to sort of a housekeeping role in an increasingly secure continent. To do so at a time when we face a new existential threat posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will condemn it to a marginal role in meeting the major challenge of our time. That is why this issue has to be front and center on NATO's agenda before, during and after Prague. The reality is that we can launch the next round of NATO enlargement as well as a new NATO-Russia relationship at Prague, and the Alliance can still be seen as failing-- that's right, failing--unless it starts to transform itself into an important new force in the war on terrorism. I plan to work with the Bush administration in the months and years ahead in an effort to promote such a transformation of the Alliance and hope that Allied governments as well as Members of Congress and the members of the legislatures we represent will strongly, enthusiastically join me in this effort. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to offer my thanks and appreciation for the service of Mr. John T. Curran of Indianapolis who is retiring this month following a forty-year career that included twenty-four years as the Meteorologist-in-Charge for the National Weather Service, NWS, office in Indianapolis. Throughout his illustrious career, Mr. Curran has played an essential role in the agency's integration of computer technology and development of the sophisticated equipment that has revolutionized the way the United States performs the vital function of monitoring and predicting our nation's weather. Mr. Curran's career began in 1961 where he worked as a trainee at the Weather Bureau Airport Station in Omaha, NE, and later as a severe local storms analyst and computer programmer. Mr. Curran's knowledge of, and experience with, the early computers and emerging technology made him an invaluable asset as the agency adopted new and better ways to carry out its mission. As the Meteorologist-in-Charge at the Indianapolis office, Mr. Curran oversaw operations in Indiana during a time of dramatic change for the NWS. Integration of new technologies and the dramatic changes brought forth by National Implementation Plan required competent and steadfast leadership to ensure that Hoosier communities benefitted from these remarkable new developments. Mr. Curran understood, however, that the people involved in this process were the backbone of the Weather Service. While the tremendous leaps in technology enable us to learn more about weather patterns better than ever before, it is the committed professionals at the agency that maintain its strength in providing this vital public service. Mr. Curran's thoughtful management of the Indianapolis office has helped ensure that this important federal responsibility is fulfilled for Indiana. The work of the NWS is essential to our economy and to public safety throughout Indiana. Accurate, reliable and helpful weather information is integral to our agricultural sector and to our transportation and manufacturing industries in Indiana. State and local officials and units of government rely on NWS alerts, warnings, and forecasts to prepare for and respond to emergency situations that occur in our cities, towns and neighborhoods. I have deeply appreciated Mr. Curran's efforts over the years to assist me and my staff in Indiana and Washington with the complex and technical issues involved with weather services and the modernization process. Mr. Curran has distinguished himself through strong, attentive leadership and a dedication to integrity in the public trust. His commitment to excellence in public service and careful stewardship at the NWS Office has made a positive difference for Indiana. I congratulate Mr. Curran for his achievements during his long career, and I thank him for his service to Indiana and the Nation. I know that he and his wife Christine look forward to spending more time with their children and grandchildren.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at the request of the Administration, I rise today to offer legislation to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act and to authorize the extension of normal trade relations to the products of the Russian Federation. Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment as a means to deny Permanent Normal Trade Relations to communist countries that restricted emigration rights and were not market economies. Jackson-Vanik continues to apply to the Russian Federation today despite the findings of successive Administrations that Russia had come into full compliance with requirements of freedom of emigration, including the absence of any tax on emigration. Furthermore, although Russia's transformation has been imperfect, substantial progress has been made toward the creation of a free-market economy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been dramatic changes in all aspects of life in Russia. It is clear that the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a role in bringing about these changes and in promoting freedom of emigration in many countries in the former Soviet Union. But, the time has come to move beyond the Cold War era. Since 1991, Congress has authorized the removal of Jackson-Vanik restrictions from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyszstan, Albania, and Georgia. Because Russia continues to be subject to Jackson-Vanik conditions, the Administration must submit a semi-annual report to the Congress on that government's continued compliance with freedom of emigration requirements. The Administration reports that this requirement continues to be a major irritant is U.S. relations with Russia. The changed circumstances that have permitted the removal of other communist countries from Title IV reporting now apply equally to Russia. I understand there remain those with concerns about extending nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the Russian Federation. But I would simply point out that the U.S. and Russia concluded a bilateral trade agreement on June 17, 1992 and that Russia is currently in the process of acceding to the World Trade Organization. In other words, the time has come to take the next step in the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship, namely, Permanent Normal Trade Relations. It is for that purpose that I introduce this legislation today.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at the request of the Administration, I rise today to offer legislation to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act and to authorize the extension of normal trade relations to the products of the Russian Federation. Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment as a means to deny Permanent Normal Trade Relations to communist countries that restricted emigration rights and were not market economies. Jackson-Vanik continues to apply to the Russian Federation today despite the findings of successive Administrations that Russia had come into full compliance with requirements of freedom of emigration, including the absence of any tax on emigration. Furthermore, although Russia's transformation has been imperfect, substantial progress has been made toward the creation of a free-market economy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been dramatic changes in all aspects of life in Russia. It is clear that the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a role in bringing about these changes and in promoting freedom of emigration in many countries in the former Soviet Union. But, the time has come to move beyond the Cold War era. Since 1991, Congress has authorized the removal of Jackson-Vanik restrictions from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyszstan, Albania, and Georgia. Because Russia continues to be subject to Jackson-Vanik conditions, the Administration must submit a semi-annual report to the Congress on that government's continued compliance with freedom of emigration requirements. The Administration reports that this requirement continues to be a major irritant is U.S. relations with Russia. The changed circumstances that have permitted the removal of other communist countries from Title IV reporting now apply equally to Russia. I understand there remain those with concerns about extending nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the Russian Federation. But I would simply point out that the U.S. and Russia concluded a bilateral trade agreement on June 17, 1992 and that Russia is currently in the process of acceding to the World Trade Organization. In other words, the time has come to take the next step in the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship, namely, Permanent Normal Trade Relations. It is for that purpose that I introduce this legislation today.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we worked with the distinguished chairman carefully. There are a large number of issues that must be discussed before this bill is perfected. In good faith, I ask the Senate to give us opportunities to perfect this bill. It must be perfected, in my judgment, if the President is to sign it, if we are to have a successful conference, and in fact if we are to have successful agricultural policy. In fairness, there are a number of amendments that must be heard that, in due course, will have to be heard somewhere in the land. This is the proper forum and the proper time. I ask my colleagues to vote against cloture to keep the process alive because I am confident we will improve the bill if we have that opportunity. I thank the Chair. changes to h. con. res. 83 pursuant to section 213

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished chairman for wishing us Merry Christmas. I reciprocate. In the same serious vein, however, we both reciprocate with farmers across our land and all citizens who watch this debate and who are deeply interested, as we are, in this bill. Let me recognize, first of all, the leadership of our chairman, Senator Harkin, who came into the chairmanship in June, and organized a staff in a very difficult year. The farm bill cycle, one that comes with this Congress, requires a great deal of organization. He has brought together a skilled group of staff members who have worked well, the staff members I was privileged to serve with when I was chairman of the committee. Nevertheless, it was a difficult time to begin the farm bill consideration, the drafting, pulling together, at least, of the materials as well as the consensus that was required. I pay tribute to the chairman for doing that very skillfully. But as has been pointed out throughout the debates, many times members complained during the markup that they were not aware of the text of the bills until a few hours before consideration. These are complex titles. Even then, we proceeded and cooperated with the chairman, for reasonable debate and votes. The chairman is correct. In the case of the titles other than the commodities title, we often came to unanimity. I think I would make only the slight correction that I offered amendments in committee to do considerably more in nutrition and food stamps and feeding of the poor than was the will of the committee at that time. Likewise, more on agricultural research. Essentially, a majority of the members of our committee were deeply concerned throughout all the other titles about the amount of money that would be left for the commodities. They wanted to follow the money. It was all right to take a look at research and nutrition and the rest of it, but these were perceived as preliminaries to the main goal. As a result, we do not all get what we want in these priorities. Nevertheless, I had a chance to express it. We had votes, I think fairly narrow losses on both of those, and came back to the floor to try again--unsuccessfully, as it turned out. I accept that fact. This may be a year in which the majority of the committee and a majority of the Senators were eager to literally appropriate more taxpayer money for the traditional crops and bits and pieces of other situations to satisfy Senators necessary to build a coalition. I also observe the driving force for all of this was a statement that the Budget Committee had reserved $172 billion over a 10-year period of time for agriculture. If this was not seized, the moment was not seized, the money was not seized, it would be gone. Therefore, even if there might be inadequate consideration of titles and texts and procedure, or even if, in this debate on the floor, amendments could not be heard, again and again we returned to the thought that if this did not occur in calendar 2001, the $172 billion might be lost. The majority leader in his comments thought maybe $30 billion or $40 billion might be left. Therefore, those voting against cloture were voting for a cut in the Agriculture bill. Admittedly, we considered a 5-year bill, the House bill with the $172 billion 10-year situation, but we even came back to that in a vote today. This preoccupation with that money is an important fact. But I tried to reason during some of our debate in this Chamber that we are all aware as Senators, quite apart from the technicalities of the Budget Committee, that our country is at least in a mild recession. We are, hopefully, going to take up stimulus spending to get it out and move people along--farmers included. There is not $172 billion and there has not been for a long time. We have continued to operate in a fashion in which we spent every last dime, pushing each commodity situation to the nth degree. I and others argued that that is a mistake for agriculture in America; it is not in the best interests of a large majority of farmers. This bill was crafted to benefit a fairly small number of farmers in America. Those of us who have talked about it have detailed in our own States precisely who gets the money. In Indiana, 66 percent of the money goes to 10 percent of the farmers. The bill we have been considering would concentrate it even more. What about the other 90 percent? Are they of no consequence in this debate? When we talk about farm families in my State, 90 percent might say: Is no one looking out for us? And I say: I am. Let's get that straight. The bills we were taking a look at narrowly focus a lot of money to a very few people. They would say: We deserve it. We are the most efficient. We are the biggest. We are getting bigger. We have the best research, the best marketing. We applaud that, but that does not justify the American taxpayers transferring money to them. We applaud their efficiency because they make money doing what they are doing. I have no idea how the final product might have looked if we had invoked cloture today. But we have a pretty good idea. How interesting it is that so many farm groups said: We are looking at two bad bills-- the House bill and the Senate bill. But vote for a bill anyway to get on with the process because the $172 billion might disappear, and somehow a miracle might occur in conference between two bad bills. That is highly unlikely. What we have done today is given ourselves a second chance to let the American people in on the secrets, the facts, and then to deliberate a little more carefully as to how in fact we should not encourage overproduction and overconcentration of the money. The problems will surely come in the trade situation of this country when we take steps such as this that are clearly not tied to all of the opening up elsewhere in the world that we espouse. We have a lot of work to do. I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman of the committee. I am grateful we have a second chance to do much better for American farmers. As I have said throughout the debate, as one who is among that group, I take farming seriously and personally--in my family as well as in my State. I think I have a pretty good idea, as a matter of fact, of what may be beneficial to Indiana agriculture. The bill that was before us without amendments and without substantial changes would have been harmful to my State. That is counterintuitive. Indiana is one of the big winners as you look down the number of farmers receiving subsidies and the amounts of money. The fact is we have been running the markets off the tracks by the Government interfering and stimulating overproduction year after year. You depress prices year after year. There is no way prices could get up, given the bill we are taking a look at. You depress it by the very nature of the bill and then complain that prices are at all-time lows. Of course, they are. If we passed this bill, prices would be low for 10 years. That would guarantee a crisis. I predict that unless we cure this, we will be back in July and August despite the protestations, and we will say somehow this just didn't work; it wasn't the right formula; we need more money, and we will vote for more money, as we have annually year after year, because the politics of competition between the parties would really not permit anyone to opt out at such a moment. I am more optimistic than my colleague from Iowa. I think we are going to progress and do the right thing, as we always attempt to do in this body. I think we are going to have more constructive deliberation outside of the Chamber and then hopefully have a more focused debate inside the Chamber and come to the right conclusions. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I ask for the comity of the majority leader, if he would be prepared to amend his unanimous consent agreement of a few days ago to ensure my amendment with regard to nutrition be included in the list that he gave.

Mr. LUGAR. May I please respond to the distinguished majority leader that the amendment changes certain portions of the commodity programs and would increase nutrition spending. This is a full disclosure of what I have in mind.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand the order is the Chair might at this point lay this amendment aside. If so, I suggest that.

Mr. LUGAR. Is the amendment laid aside?

Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator, I think, is historically correct. Within my memory, we had the 1988 crisis with the 20 States. As I recall, we passed some legislation to alleviate that during the appropriations process. That is, at least, my recollection.

Mr. LUGAR. No. It was this huge emergency created by the drought. And many of us were involved, in a bipartisan way.

Mr. LUGAR. Probably the Senator himself. The memory grows dim as you go 13 years back in the farm business.

Mr. LUGAR. I suppose my query is just this: You are correct, we have had all these annual situations since the 1996 legislation. But in this particular year, the Secretary of Agriculture, at the time we were debating the emergency in August, pointed out the net farm cash income was $61 billion. And this is historically an all-time high in terms of income in the country. It was higher than last year, but the last year was more than the year before that. In essence, even in the face of much higher net farm cash income, we have been reappearing. The safety net under the bill we now have, of course, was these AMTA payments. These were the fixed payments that went to farmers regardless of what else happened. They were to diminish after 7 years, and have been heading down from, say, $5 billion of Federal expenditures into the $4 billion range, and so forth, each year, and then the loan deficiency payments, at least for certain of our rural crops. For example, in my State $1.89 for corn is the loan deficiency payment level, which means you have $1.89 regardless of what the market price is, however low it may be recorded. At the time, admittedly, $1.89 seemed like a price that would not be approached as frequently as it now is. During harvest time, we are regularly below $1.89 in terms of people coming into the elevator at that point. So this has led to much greater Federal Government expenditures; $6 billion, I think, last year to loan deficiency, and not just for corn but for other crops. But that was meant to be the safety net. And it is arguable as to whether it should go higher or lower. It depends upon the Federal outlays, I suspect, quite apart from the fact that more production occurs. I saw yesterday, as perhaps the chairman did, on the cover of USA Today, their first page, a chart on soybean production in the country. Soybean production, right through the Freedom to Farm experience, had been going up every year. This year's crop is prophesied to be a whopper and, clearly, an all-time high. Given planting intentions, it might appear that next year's would follow. I mention this because I hope the chairman is right. Let us say, for example, his bill and the Daschle substitute are adopted, but as it turns out farmers think their incomes are not adequate. My point, I suppose, has been that a part of the reason, even in the face of what I think have been fairly record incomes in the aggregate, although not for all States and not for all crops, and a fairly good safety net, is that both of the political parties represented in this body have been competitive for the allegiance of farm voters and people who were sympathetic to farmers. I admit, throughout these emergency bills, it has been my privilege to serve as chairman. I have stood with you or with Senator Leahy managing these bills. I was perfectly aware on our side of the aisle that a large majority of our Members wanted more money for farmers. It appeared that was true on your side of the aisle. Whoever was managing this legislation was left with at least the thought of trying to get it right technically so the farmers got the money in as soon a time as possible so, if there were emergencies, these were met, right now as opposed to the hereafter. So we strove to expedite a process that clearly our membership wanted. That seemed to be true on the other side of the Capitol as well. None of these bills were vetoed by whoever was President during this period of time. If the White House had a budget objection to these, it was pretty mild or nonexistent. I mention all this because I think that helps explain a part of the impetus for this bill. In other words, there is almost an annual expectation of correction or of enhancement of whatever may have occurred. Most of us have voted for that. The two of us may even have helped manage it in one form or another, to try to bring it into clear channels, to have the proper hearings and committee meetings. It may very well be--you are not discovering this but sort of enduring the process--that the expectations of Members on both sides of the aisle are very large when it comes to their States and their constituents. As you strive to find a majority to vote for a farm bill, for a final product, to get the bill out and on to conference, you are forced daily to take into consideration the needs of various Members, some of them very legitimate and poignant. In the same way on our side of the aisle, we attempt to do likewise. I say this not in sympathy because the chairman is a strong person and fully able to take care of himself and the situation. But I had hoped perhaps to try to guide the process in a different direction. I would admit, having heard the debate and having seen the votes as recorded dutifully by the Washington Post and others, 70 to 30 is not close. I understand that. On the other hand, we were trying to find something that, as the chairman has pointed out, may have been too much of a change all at one time, may not have been completely understood in terms of the arithmetic, how people come out. So I accept that fact. But nevertheless, I thought it was important to try to make some arguments for maybe a new day somewhere over the horizon. In the meanwhile, I will continue to work with the chairman with the product we have at hand. One reason why it has not moved expeditiously is that I suspect there are still some lingering thoughts on both sides of the aisle about limiting payments, for example. We heard a little bit of that from Senator Wellstone this morning with regard to the EQIP program and specific extensions of livestock. I think we will hear more from the distinguished occupant of the chair and maybe others who have been concerned about the equities here involved. Therefore, in part, perhaps, the land bubble situation created not only, as the chairman says, by the AMTA payments but by overextension, as people plant for the program, fully supported by this, but sometimes at the expense of their smaller competitors who do not have the research background, the capitalization, even the managerial skills, but for whom our farm bills have been dedicated, the saving of the small family farm or even the medium-size farm in a situation that appears to be more consolidated as time goes on. Each of these amendments that deal with limits will get into this philosophically, and they are important to hear. Senator Grassley's comments today about trade--and the chairman has responded to that very ably--this is still a troubling area in which all the ramifications are not clear, and they do bump dangerously into the 19.1 or the area of the charts that the chairman had which were helpful in giving some idea as to where all of these different lights appear. We will have to be careful there because clearly we need to export. We need if not an overall WTO breakthrough, at least a good number of bilaterals that will be helpful to us. These are issues that are not easily resolved, but I think they will be as we have debates commencing again on Tuesday, as these issues come up again. I look forward to working with the chairman in a vigorous attempt as we proceed on Tuesday.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, before that occurs, since I will be the designee, I just want to make a comment about the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. I appreciate what he is attempting to do. I find the situation--one in which I argued fairly strenuously, but I think without necessarily persuading Senators--that the farm bill, at least as it is now constituted, will inevitably increase planting of corn, wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans--those things to which the money is directed. There is strong evidence the USDA pointed out our last farm bill stimulated about 4 million acres of additional production into the program crops. One might argue that we were not subsidizing expansion. But the evidence is much of this increase in acreage came from our largest, most efficient producers, whose names appear in lists receiving the most subsidies. Perhaps if we were to try all this over again and look with some consistency as we take a look at the livestock portion of agriculture at the same time we deal with the crops and various other parts--and that is what the Senator has sought to do, to take a whole farm, whole income approach--perhaps this amendment might have some more equity. It probably has value for the reasons the distinguished Senator from Iowa, our chairman, has pointed out. Clearly, most persons involved in these reform movements, support the EQIP program. I believe it is an important one with regard to the environment, as well as some equity for livestock producers. They are loathe to admit that this might produce more livestock, greater herds subsidized by the Federal Government. Obviously it does. The Senator from Minnesota is trying to plug up that particular hole, while it seems to me there are gaping holes in the dike all around that are likely to lead to very large expenditures. I will study the amendment carefully. I will likewise attempt to work with my colleagues to see if we can bring some equity in all parts of agriculture. We will take a look again at the whole farm situation. Does my colleague wish further debate on the Wellstone amendment?

Mr. LUGAR. I understand the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has an amendment at the desk. Is that correct?

Mr. LUGAR. On behalf of the Senator from Arizona, I call up the amendment at the desk.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comprehensive statement the chairman has just concluded. Likewise, I have appreciated the statements of Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran because they have also given a comprehensive view of their thinking regarding their substitute amendments. Senator Burns of Montana offered constructive amendments this morning, as did Senator Wellstone, to initiate our process earlier in the morning. I believe it has been a good day, a constructive debate. Senators who are following the farm bill debate have a pretty good idea of the parameters of the present discussion and likewise the choices that are going to be before us on Tuesday when amendments come up for further debate and votes. Let me interject into the debate today what I thought was a timely editorial which appeared in the editorial page of the Washington Post this morning. I was startled by the headline of the editorial, which is: ``A Piggy Farm Bill''. It says: The Farm bill that Democratic leaders--Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin--are trying to push through the Senate before Congress adjourns for the holidays is obscene. Those are very strong words to describe legislation we are now discussing. It would institutionalize the insupportable excesses of the past few years, in which billions of dollars in supposedly emergency payments have regularly been made to some of the nation's largest and least-needy producers. In the House, the Republican leadership won approval of a similar bill over mild administration objections in October. Senate passage would make the indulgent policy hard to alter when Congress reconvenes and the bills are put before a House-Senate conference committee next year. Farm lobbyists and their congressional supporters would far rather the Senate vote now than then, when the excessive supports in the bill are likely to look less affordable. But that's all the more reason why the Senate should delay. I am not in agreement that the Senate should delay, but I do take at least some cognizance of the Washington Post's evaluation of where things stand to date. Congressional Republicans passed a farm bill in 1996 that was supposed to reduce producers' reliance on government payments; they would provide for the market instead. Still in effect, that act provides basic payments mainly to grain and cotton producers of roughly $10 billion a year. In each of the past few years, however, Congress has also provided billions of additional ``emergency'' payments. The effect of the new bill would be to regularize those, thereby abandoning the five-year experiment in supposed market reform. That is a severe indictment that this farm bill abandons the philosophy of Freedom to Farm in 1996. I continue with the editorial: Some of the extra money in the Harkin bill--a couple of billion a year--would be directed to conservation programs. The policy is good, and the political effect has been to buy off environmental groups that might otherwise have opposed the broader pig-out in which they now share. A little of the extra would also be used to shore up the food stamp and lesser feeding programs for the poor. But these are relatively small amounts and a sop to conscience. Sen. Richard Lugar tried the other day to change the priorities in the bill--limit the farm supports, spread them across more producers and use the bulk of the savings to strengthen the feeding programs, especially food stamps, which have been allowed to wither a bit. He lost 70 to 30; only three Democrats supported him. It's possible there will be other such efforts before the bill is passed. This bill is not redeemable, but it is improvable. At the very least, a larger share of the enormous sum could be spent on people in need instead of on large producers who love to preach free enterprise but not to practice it. Is that not something Democrats support? We still have an opportunity to make substantial improvements on the priorities as well as the aspects of programs in which moneys provide a safety net, provide proper incentives to produce for the market, and provide support for our trade negotiators. Each one of us at one time or another has given many speeches about the salvation of American agriculture coming from the great productive mechanism of our farm situation and exports and feeding people around the world--the humanitarian aspects as well as the commercial ones. That has been elusive for a great number of reasons--some beyond our control as the European Community and others have stymied these efforts. Nevertheless, our farm bill should not do so. I appreciate the chairman's careful attention to the green and amber payment situation of the WTO. I have no doubt this is going to come into play in the event we pass a farm bill coincident with that which now lies before us without taking more precautionary measures. That concerns me and a good number of others who are simply interested in the prosperity of this country generally. Movement of goods and services in foreign trade I believe will enhance all of our wealth, especially that of agricultural America. I think we have to take a look at priorities. I thought the initial amendment offered this morning by Senator Wellstone of Minnesota was very interesting. It clearly has the effect of limiting payments to large feeding operations. The whole intent of it was to suggest that the import of the current bill that lies before us might stimulate overproduction of livestock and further subsidize the overproduction. I think he is probably right. What we are doing with regard to the row crops--the so-called program crops--in a very big way stimulates overproduction, and has for the past 5 years, and is bound to do more of this. That is what I find to be very difficult as I look at the future and see a farm bill deliberately creating overproduction and low prices. The cycle of this, Mr. President, as you well know, is that prices go lower, and people give speeches that they can't ever think of a time when they were lower and, therefore, an emergency payment is needed. And it is debated first in June, July, and August with regularity, fully predictable. It is fully predictable now in the event we pass this bill. Despite all the protestations to the contrary, we will be back. The distinguished chairman will hear the drumbeat of persons who want him to bring another farm bill out 6 months after he passes this one to remedy the deficiency. There will be low prices created by overproduction and stagnation in world trade, which exacerbates the problem. There could be a year in which the weather situation is truly disastrous. I remember such a year in 1988 in which as many as 20 States, as I recall, had such severe weather problems, and a delegation of Senators talked to President Reagan in the White House and advised him that literally half the country and most of the agricultural country had been devastated by drought in particular. And the President supported a fairly large emergency proposition at that time. Usually, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out, the weather devastation situations are less than 20 States, and therefore Senators come a crop at a time, or whatever happens to have been in harm's way. As Senator Harkin complimented Senator Cochran earlier on, Senator Cochran, at least in recent years, often had been there to add money to the Agriculture appropriations bill to help those folks out. But that really has not been enough. The general proposition is that prices are low and, therefore, a double AMTA payment has been sent out. The chairman has pointed out correctly, the AMTA payments may not be the proper vehicle for total equity. They may include people who no longer are in farming but had a history, as in the 1996 bill. But for purposes of efficiency, so money would get to farmers, the rolls are there at USDA. They have been utilized. The money was gone as of the end of August of this year. It was received, to the applause of country bankers who were assured of getting repaid and farmers who were thinking about getting back in the field again. I understand that, as does the distinguished Presiding Officer. All I am pointing out is that I had hoped, in this farm bill, we would not repeat this cycle of predictable results. It does not do justice to farmers in the United States who, at some point, do want to produce for the markets and do want to have a safety net that is not unpredictable. And any safety net based upon loan rates is certainly unpredictable. It may, in fact, be a cap on prices as opposed to a support. I hope that some version, at least, of the concept I presented-- namely, that farmers have assurance of some percentage of income every year, some money with which to purchase that assurance--I think, in fact, mechanisms, through bipartisan wisdom, have been set up in the crop insurance program that provide the mechanics for that kind of safety net. I had attempted to propose a formula in which--using whole farm income applicable to all 50 of our States equally and to all crops and all livestock operations--money would be provided through a voucher, but money, indeed, from the Federal Government, a transfer payment from taxpayers to assure a safety net for farmers, but with assurance, year in and year out, of a certain stream of revenue. If Senators were to suggest that perhaps 80 percent, as a proposition, is too low a net, I would certainly be prepared to take pencil and paper in hand with any Senator and try out 85 percent. That is the level of crop insurance that I purchased for my own farm operation this year under the policies we have adopted. I think that is a sound thing to do, and to have a marketing strategy based upon the certainty you have 85 percent of your crop before you even plant it. That is possible under current legislation and, in fact, I think to be encouraged with producers all over the country who are always at risk. But I hope we will move toward more of a basis as I have suggested as we proceed through the debate. I certainly will encourage that as I listen to alternatives that are presented. Mr. President, this concludes at least my thoughts for the day on the agriculture bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I want to take advantage of the presence of the distinguished Senator from Vermont and the present chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who are the sole survivors of the agriculture debate today. This may be indicative of the kind of stamina required for this work. It would be my hope to proceed in morning business to, in fact, give a statement about national security. I ask the Chair informally, because he has had a very long week, and I had not anticipated that he would be assuming this responsibility--nor do I wish to take advantage of that--if I may, I would like to proceed in morning business.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I found in the current issue of the National Journal a very important article entitled ``Nuclear Nightmares,'' by James Kitfield, who has written knowledgeably in the past about matters of national security, and particularly those involving nuclear energy and weapons of mass destruction. I want to place this article by James Kitfield into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.