Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Our report language should be used as legislative history of interpreting and applying this important piece of legislation.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Although the bill is silent on cost-benefit analysis, it is expected that NRCS will follow its normal procedures including following the ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.'' As part of being fiscally and environmentally responsible, NRCS should look for the most cost-effective solution with the best feasible environmental results. Further, NRCS should not fund a project if the local sponsor insists on a form of rehabilitation that does not meet these standards.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, section 804 of H.R. 4461, the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill, provides the Secretary of Agriculture with emergency authority to compensate growers for crop losses due to new and emergent pests and diseases, including watermelon sudden wilt disease. Senator Cochran, I want to thank you for including watermelon sudden wilt disease in the list of problems addressed by section 804. This disease, which is characterized by wilting leaves and collapsing vines, often results in the death of mature watermelon plants. The disease became a problem in southwestern Indiana last year and has become a much more serious problem in the region this year. Last year, Indiana farmers grew $11 million worth of watermelons, ranking sixth in the nation. This year production will likely be significantly less. On September 19, 2000 USDA's Farm Service Agency office in Indianapolis estimated that the disease may be responsible for Indiana watermelon losses of up to $4.7 million. Despite ongoing study, scientists at Purdue University have not yet determined what causes the disease, including whether or not adverse weather is a contributing factor. As a result, it appears unlikely that Hoosier watermelon growers affected by this problem will be eligible for assistance under USDA's existing disaster programs or for assistance provided by other sections of the agriculture appropriations conference report. Assistance in these cases is generally limited to weather-related crop losses. As a result, full implementation by the Secretary of Agriculture of the emergency compensation authority provided by section 804 is important. I must note, however, that section 804 permits, but does not require, the Secretary of Agriculture to provide compensation to growers due to watermelon sudden wilt disease and other new and emergent pests and diseases. Is it the intent of the bill's managers that the Secretary of Agriculture fully implement the authority provided by section 804?

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 225th birthday to the United States Navy, by passing Senate Resolution 373. Several of the Senate's other veterans of naval service have joined me in sponsoring this resolution and I thank Senator McCain, Senator Moynihan, Senator Warner, Senator Cochran, Senator Robb, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Miller, Senator Bob Kerrey and Senator John Kerry. While we like to celebrate on a birthday, we must pause in solemn reflection, for yesterday, the Navy family suffered a tragic loss. I send my heartfelt condolences to the U.S.S. Cole and her extended family. Like thousands of Sailors before them, these brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. The loss is felt by the entire nation, and the entire nation grieves with you and expresses gratitude for your sacrifice. October 13, 1775, was the day that the Continental Congress established a ``Naval Committee'' to acquire and fit out vessels for sea and draw up regulations. By the following month the committee procured two ships, two brigs and later two sloops and two schooners. From these modest beginnings, the greatest Navy in the world has grown. Down through the years, the Navy has been central to the history of this nation, and ever-integral to her longevity and prosperity. Mr. President, I had the honor of serving in the Navy. Perhaps my greatest honor during my service as a young naval intelligence officer was working for Admiral Arleigh ``31-Knot'' Burke, when he was Chief of Naval Operations. A heroic WWII destroyer squadron commander, Admiral Burke was truly a man of vision. Under his tutelage I learned valuable lessons about the Navy's place in our history, but also about the key role it plays today in economics, science, politics, and international relations. Then as now, the world was an uncertain place, and the Navy played a vital role in calming the waters. Admiral Burke is the namesake for the class of destroyers to which the U.S.S. Cole belongs. The Cole tragedy brings the spotlight on the Navy and the day-in, day-out honor, courage and commitment of her sailors. At the commissioning of the lead ship in the class, Admiral Burke stated fittingly ``This ship is built to fight, you had better know how.'' A quote reminiscent of Captain John Paul Jones legendary declaration: ``I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way.'' These are the best ships in the world, manned by the world's best Sailors, but they are not impregnable fortresses, they do sail in harm's way. Many have expressed incredulity at the attack on the warship Cole. But, she was in a vulnerable situation--coming pierside to replenish fuel in a presumed-benign environment. The task that was to occupy Cole and her crew over the next several months--maritime interdiction duty in the Persian Gulf--was more precarious. Ships refuel in foreign ports daily as they have for many years. But this tragedy is a reminder that the peace and prosperity we enjoy is not without cost, nor are the commitments we make to our allies. The U.S.S. Cole is one of the Navy's finest warships--one of 318 operational ships. 4108 Navy aircraft are also operational today. 42 percent of those ships are away from homeport and 32 percent, like the Cole and the U.S.S. George Washington Battlegroup, of which she was a member, are deployed. These numbers provide a snapshot of the Navy's diligence around the globe. Their involvement in contingency operations over the last 10 years is also very telling. From 1946 to 1989 (44 years) the U.S. Navy responded to 195 crises, while from 1990 to 1999 (10 years) the Navy responded to 122 crises. Such optempos demand much of the men and women in uniform, and their loved ones back home. It also places tremendous stress on our ships and aircraft. While deployed battlegroups have maintained their readiness, they often do so at the expense of non-deployed units. In my view, we must maintain our commitment to support the fleet and ensure they continue to be the best equipped in the world. We have a distinct responsibility to our Navy, not to blindly increase ship production in response to rampant deployment rates, but to ensure we are ready to face clearly defined missions and threats. Today, as in the future, America relies on its Navy. For 225 years, the Navy has responded to each new demand and comes through in the clutch. Ever-present, around the globe, minutes away from crises as they occur, today's Navy is deterring would-be aggressors; and providing fledgling democracies with visible reassurance of U.S. support. Daily, Navy men and women are our ambassadors in ports of call and as participants in multi-national operations and exercises. As one of the eleven members of this Senate to have worn the Navy uniform, I am pleased to share my pride in our sea service with all who have worn Navy blue down through the years. I also send greetings to the 373,910 men and women on active duty today, the 182,970 ready reservists, and the extended Navy family of civilian personnel, families and loved ones. As we celebrate this 225th birthday, I close solemnly, and offer the first verse of the Navy Hymn in memory of those who have most recently perished in service to their Navy and their country: Eternal Father, Strong to save, Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bid'st the mighty Ocean deep Its own appointed limits keep; O hear us when we cry to thee, for those in peril on the sea.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution in support of democracy and drug eradication in Bolivia. I'm pleased that I have been joined by several colleagues in a bipartisan initiative to applaud and support one of the most successful drug-eradication programs in the world. Our resolution recognizes that extraordinary achievements of Bolivia's narcotics elimination program. It urges the Government of Bolivia to continue its program of drug elimination while upholding the rule of law and safeguarding human rights. It also urges the indigenous leaders to cease provocative acts and begin discussions with the Government of Bolivia to resolve outstanding issues. For nearly two weeks now, Bolivia has been confronting one of the worst social upheavals the country has endured in the past two decades. The turmoil has been perpetrated by diverse forces in Bolivia, particularly those who wish to reverse the drug eradication program in the country. A destabilization campaign, initiated by drug traffickers, has resulted in a number of protests that have virtually paralyzed the country. Roads that connect the major cities of the country were destroyed and blockaded and the flow of food to the urban centers has been interrupted. Nearly a dozen people have died and more have been injured by acts of violence. Economic losses are estimated at more than $160 million and growing. The protesters, who are led by coca growers, were demanding the resignation of the President, the suspension of the anti-drug strategy, and the elimination of plans to build a U.S. funded military installation in the Chapare region--the region where most illegal coca has been cultivated. They also demand that the Government allow peasants of the Chapare to replant about 6,000 hectares of coca, which, if that is allowed to happen, would yield roughly 42 tons of cocaine. President Banzer has flatly rejected most demands to changes in the Bolivian drug strategy, the Dignity Plan. He has, nevertheless, agreed to suspend plans for the construction of a new military installation in the Chapare and proposed to refurbish the existing installation instead. Other groups in Bolivia have added a number of unrelated demands which appeared to be coordinated by or to be in concert with the coca leaders. Teachers, for example, have demanded pay raises, inmates have asked for better jail conditions, peasants demanded a modification of laws on land ownership, doctors requested better pay, and agitators exploited the current state of affairs to amplify racial division. Isolated by themselves, these may be reasonable requests but when they are raised or orchestrated by drug traffickers, the goals become more malevolent. The protesters formed a coordinated block with the intent to make the government deal with all the demands together, in the form of a comprehensive package. There is little doubt that the largest risk for the country lies with the ``cocalero'' movement--the peasant coca growers--that is supported by regional drug trafficking interests. The drug traffickers are embarking on a desperate effort to reverse the anti-drug plan being waged by the Bolivian Government and turn back the remarkable progress in drug eradication that has been accomplished in the past few years. Coca leaders and the drug traffickers are aware that their leadership and the ill-gotten riches they derive from illegal narcotics will end if the final 1,800 hectares of coca in the Chapare are destroyed. This helps explain the intransigence of its leaders. During this crisis, the government has demonstrated a steady dedication to seek agreements through dialogue while retaining a respect for human rights. It is important to keep in mind that the current turmoil in Bolivia is occurring at a time when Bolivia is set to complete its program of coca eradication while simultaneously facing a serious economic crisis. Of the 40,000 hectares which have been used for the cultivation of coca, only 1,800 hectares remain. The Bolivian economy have taken a big hit from its effort to combat drug trafficking. The fight against drug trafficking alone has resulted in the loss of 3% of Bolivia's GDP. The fight against contraband and customs reforms have absorbed another 3% of the GDP of Bolivia. This is all the more remarkable because this pan to eradicate drugs has taken place in a country where 7 out of 10 Bolivians live on $2 a day, an income which is very much below the poverty line. For these and other reasons, the Government of Bolivia has called on the international community to do everything possible to ensure that the hard won efforts in the fight against drug trafficking are not turned back. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that our resolution congratulates the Government of Bolivia for its successful drug elimination program and urges the government to continue its commitment to eradicate illegal coca by the end of 2002. It applauds the government's efforts to pursue its anti-narcotics strategy and urges the government to do what it can to uphold the rule of law and democratic practices, despite the strains the drug traffickers have imposed on the government. The resolution also stresses the view that human rights must continue to be safeguarded and urges the indigenous leaders to terminate provocative acts and negotiate the outstanding issues with the government of Bolivia. I urge our colleagues to take note of the successful drug eradication program in Bolivia and encourage the democratically-elected government in La Paz to sustain its commitment for total coca eradication by the end of next year.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Hoosiers have been remembering and celebrating the remarkable life and achievements of one of our greatest citizens, Edmund F. Ball. I want to share with the nation a most appropriate tribute published in the Muncie Star Press of October 3, 2000 by Phil Ball. The article follows: Ed Ball took his last flight Sept. 30. This was an unscheduled flight but with a good pilot who probably let Ed handle the controls for some of the trip. This was a flight into history--a flight into legend. Ed died in Ball Memorial Hospital. Just across the street is the Edmund F. Ball Medical Education Center. And a half- mile away stands the Edmund F. Ball Building on the Ball State campus. A mile and a half away in Community Civic Center (once the Masonic Temple) is an assembly room named the Edmund Ball Auditorium. Those are just a few of the monuments to this most important citizen who has ever lived in our hometown of Muncie. But Ed's life and times and image and achievements and generosities were his most important monuments. Ed wasn't one to brag. Those who knew him knew his modesty and his tendency toward self-deprecating humor. One of Ed's witticisms was to say that after his life was over, all he had done was ``to cross the street.'' To explain this, he pointed out that he was born on East Washington Street and when he died he would be laid out and prepared for burial at Meeks Mortuary across the other side of East Washington Street. But in almost 96 years between those two events, Ed accomplished more than any 10 people and became a legend in his own time, although he would be the first to deny any such words of grandiloquence. This hometown of his and mine and yours has been the beneficiary of countless works of his mind and his generosity. The last time I saw Ed was when he was hospitalized in June 1999 with a minor problem--heart trouble. I am glad that at that time I did something to boost his morale and help erase one of his lifelong regrets. I made him an honorary member of my Old and Original and Valid Muncie Ball family. Many people in the past have thought that Ed might be somehow related to me--it isn't really so. Ed's family were frost-bitten immigrants from Buffalo in 1887, whereas my family were already here and cultivating the soil in Delaware County by 1830. Ed wrote me on June 12, 1999, and said he was pleased that he at long last had finally achieved good genealogic status-- even though it was just honorary. His type of man will not be seen again anytime soon, if ever. He was Muncie's man of the millennium. Shakespeare said it best when he wrote the last words of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, who lay dying. This is what Hamlet said: ``The rest is silence.''

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to report language in the Senate version of the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill, which directs the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to spend 20 percent of its budget on ``nation-building'' activities in four war-stricken areas. The language appears in the committee report. Although the language is not mandatory, it sends a strong message that compliance by NED is expected. I believe that the language should be deleted. I would like to commend the work of the chairman and ranking member of the CJS Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, for providing the NED with the resources to conduct its vital work. NED and its four core institutes do an exceptional job in assisting grassroots democrats in more than 80 countries around the world. NED has a strong track record, developed through involvement in virtually every critical struggle for democracy over the past fifteen years. NED supported the democratic movements that helped bring about peaceful transitions to democracy in Poland, the Czech Republic, Chile, and South Africa. NED is also playing an important role in supporting some of the newer democracies, such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Croatia, and Mexico. I am very familiar with the work of NED and its institutes because I serve on NED's Board of Directors. I serve on the Board along with two other Senators and two Members of the House representing both political parties. We are all concerned about the implications of the committee's report language on the operations and mission of the Endowment. In its report, the committee recommends that NED spend 20 percent of its entire budget to reconstitute civil governments in four seriously troubled areas--Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo, and East Timor. I am pleased to report that NED is working in each of these areas on long-term democratic development. The Endowment is helping non-governmental organizations, whose leaders are facing grave danger to their personal safety, as they report on human rights abuses, campaign for peace, and provide independent news and information to the public. We need to keep in mind that NED's mission is not to ``build'' nations or governments, but to help promote democracy. It does this giving a helping hand to those inside other countries through financial and technical assistance to nurture a strong civil society and market economy. NED is successful precisely because it targets its assistance to grassroots democratic groups. I do not support the report language because its implementation would undermine NED's mission while forcing NED to withdraw scarce resources from other priority countries. It would be a mistake to divert NED's modest budget to a handful of crisis situations which are already receiving enormous sums of international assistance. It is unlikely that the funds suggested in the report language could positively impact these war-torn areas, but by consuming 20 percent of NED's budget, the language will hamstring NED's ability to perform its work in many other critical countries. NED is a cost-effective investment that advances our national interest and our fundamental values of democracy and freedom. It is crucial, therefore, that we address the committee's goals in the report language without compromising the ability of NED to carry out its work effectively. I urge the Senate and House conferees on the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill to delete the report language directing the NED to expend funds for nation-building activities in four troubled conflicts.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation will meet on September 27, 2000 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review U.S. Department of Agriculture financial management issues.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization will meet on September 25, 2000 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 2000. subcommittee on research, nutrition and general legislation

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the International Academic Opportunity Act of 2000. I'm pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Collins, and Feingold in introducing this important piece of legislation. Our bill attempts to address a gap in U.S. institutions of higher education among undergraduate students who wish to study abroad but who lack the financial means to do so. Specifically, our bill would establish an undergraduate grant program in the Department of State for the purpose of assisting American students with limited financial means to pursue studies abroad. It would provide grants for eligible students of up to $5,000 toward the cost of studying overseas for up to one academic year. These grants would be made available from existing appropriations, so we are not requesting any new funds to administer the program. The program would be administered by the Department of State and funded through the 150 International Affairs budget. Global education is a foreign policy and national security issue, not only an education matter. During the cold war period and now, international education is part of the glue that helps to hold alliances together, that promotes cooperative bilateral relationships, that enhances international trade and business and narrows the psychological distance between counties and cultures. Our target population are the many students who wish to study abroad but who are unable to do so because of financial limitations. Our bill attempts to remedy this gap in American higher education. To qualify for these grants, an individual must be a student in good standing at a United States institution of higher education, must have been accepted for up to one academic year of study at an institution of higher education outside the United States or be in a study program abroad approved by the student's home institution, and must be a citizen or national of the United States. Priority would be given to those who have a demonstrated financial need and who meet these other eligibility requirements. It is my understanding that this proposal has been endorsed by the American Council on Education, the Association of State College and Universities, the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, NAFSA (Association of International Educators), the Institute of International Education, the American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS, and other educational associations and organizations involved in promoting and implementing international exchanges and higher education. Mr. President, there are roughly five foreign students studying in the United States for every one U.S. student studying abroad. Only one percent of our total university population in the United States--about 15 million--studies abroad. This imbalance is troubling and should be rectified. 95 percent of the world's population--and all potential trading partners and customers for U.S. exports--live outside the United States. We need to improve the availability and the means for more students, scholars and practitioners to study abroad--in institutions of higher learning, to engage in language studies, to conduct field research, and to participate in international exchanges. There is extensive research which indicates that experience in study abroad programs produces significant measurable language improvement, typically raising students from survival level skills to real fluency. Research also shows that alumni of study abroad programs view that experience as critical to their career choices and to the performances of their jobs. In a globalized economy, our ability to understand, communicate, and conduct international commerce and other forms of cross-national and cross-cultural interactions hinge on our ability to understand and work effectively with other societies. Globalization makes the imperative of knowing and understanding the rest of the world more compelling than ever. The global economic and technology revolutions have helped redefine our nation's economic security. The opening of markets, the expansion of international trade, the extraordinary effects of Internet technology, and the need for American business to compete around the world require a larger global vision that can be advanced through expanded contacts and international education. In order to make our program successful, other countries need to improve their exchange programs to attract American students by making more classroom space available, more and better housing, and improved language capabilities. For our part, we need to do more to encourage undergraduate students to explore the challenges and opportunities of living abroad in another culture, of being exposed to different values and different mores. I believe this bill merits special attention. The costs are minimal, it adds no new funding to the already-strained appropriations for international affairs and it addresses the needs of those undergraduate American students who wish to study abroad but cannot ordinarily do so because they lack the financial means. I hope my colleagues will support this initiative. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished Chairman.

Mr. LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like then to state here that it is the intent of the bill that there be a review of the implementation of the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and China on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. As you know, this agreement was reached so that American pharmaceutical compound patents issued between 1986 and 1993 would enjoy protection in China. As a number of disputes have arisen from this agreement, I think it is important that we have an independent and objective look at this agreement and then we can determine if additional efforts in this area are warranted.

Mr. LUGAR. I would like to then clarify that the bill before us should not only provide means to review WTO trade compliance, but also past agreements affecting trade between our countries, whether they are treaties or memorandum of agreements between the United States and China. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. LUGAR. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, a brief question. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of important initiatives and oversight capabilities created in this legislation on PNTR. Not only do we make permanent our trading relationship with China, but we have included monitoring capabilities to ensure that the commitments agreed to in the WTO accession agreements are, in fact, lived up to by the Chinese government.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on September 20, 2000 in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review how our food safety system should address microbial contamination. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will meet on September 21, 2000 in SR-328A at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 2000. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. As a Nation we remember and honor all those who were prisoners of war and those who are still MIA. It is altogether fitting that they have this special day where we express gratitude for their service, for their sacrifices, and for the sacrifices of their families. We also take this day to assure the many families who still await the return of a loved one that we have not forgotten. As a former Navy officer, I feel strongly that the United States Government must fulfill its commitments to the men and women who serve in the armed forces. One of these commitments is using every available means to ensure the return of POWs and MIAs at the end of hostilities. We must continue to support the vigorous pursuit of this commitment through on-site investigations being undertaken in Indochina and through a fuller examination of records in the United States, Russia and Asia. I would like us to renew our promise to the families and to the Nation to tirelessly fight for the fullest possible disclosure of information about the many Americans missing or unaccounted for from World War I, World War II, the Korean War, in Southeast Asia, and from the Cold War. As we renew that promise, we can also count some accomplishments. In the past year, the remains of 49 Americans were returned from the war in Southeast Asia; however, 2005 Americans remain unaccounted for from that war--1,511 in Vietnam alone. All year, veterans in Indiana and around the country have been holding commemorative events marking the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. This year has also seen progress in negotiations with the North Korean Government. In June, we witnessed a historic summit between North and South Korea, which could lead to further breakthroughs. Within the past three months, joint United States-North Korean remains recovery operations have returned the remains of 28 Americans. Since 1996, teams from the U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii have conducted 15 such operations and recovered remains believed to be 68 soldiers. Though many of these MIA files were dormant for years because we had no diplomatic ties with the North Koreans, advances in DNA identification procedures create the hope that all of these remains will be identified. This is a team effort and requires the firm commitments of the Congress, the Administration, the Departments of Defense and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Agency. I am hopeful that all of us, through continued humanitarian support and dedicated diplomatic endeavors, will gain further information about the servicemen still missing to honor their sacrifice and provide peace of mind to their loved ones.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will meet on September 18, 2000 at 10 a.m. in Norristown, PA. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the Farmland Protection Program (FPP).

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the summer food service program, which provides summer meals to poor children. On an average school day in 1999, nearly 27 million children received lunches supported by the national school lunch program. Of that total, over 15 million of these children were poor. Over 7 million children participated in the school breakfast program and more than 6 million of these children were poor. These statistics clearly show that the American people are generous and compassionate regarding the nutritional status of our children, especially poor children who may not have access to enough food at home. However, most of these poor children lose access to school lunches and breakfasts once the school year is over. The Federal Government does have programs to provide summer meals, but only about 22 percent of the poor children who get a school lunch also get a summer meal. Common sense tells us that children's hunger does not go on vacation at the end of the school year. Basically, children can receive federally subsidized summer meals in 2 ways: through the summer food service program; or, if they are in summer school or year-round school, through the regular national school lunch and school breakfast programs. Summer school and year-round school students can get the regular school lunch and breakfast programs. Just as in the regular school year, students can receive free, reduced price or full price meals, depending upon their families' income. In July 1999, 1.1 million children received free or reduced price meals this way. The summer food service program was created to provide summer meals for children who are not in summer school or year-round school. The establishment of a summer food service program site depends upon a local entity agreeing to operate a site. At the local level, the summer food service program (SFSP) is run by approved sponsors, including school districts, local government agencies, camps, private nonprofit organizations or post-secondary schools sponsoring NCAA National Youth Sports Programs. Sponsors provide free meals to a group of children at a central site, such as a school or a community center or at satellite sites, such as playgrounds. Sponsors receive payments from USDA, through their State agencies, for the documented food costs of the meals they serve and for their documented operating costs. The program is targeted toward serving poor children. States approve SFSP meal sites as open, enrolled, or camp sites. Open sites operate in low-income area where at least half of the children come from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level, making them eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Meals and snacks are served free to any child at the open site. Enrolled sites provide free meals to all children enrolled in an activity program at the site if at least half of them are eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Camps may also participate in SFSP. They receive payments only for the meals served to children who are eligible for free and reduced- price school meals. At most sites, children receive either one or two reimbursable meals or a meal and a snack each day. Camps and sites that primarily serve migrant children may be approved to serve up to three meals to each child, each day. Participation in the SFSP and the summer portion of the school lunch program varies widely by State. Comparing the number of low-income children in summer programs to the number who get free and reduced price meals during the regular school year gives a reasonable measure of how well the summer meal needs of low-income children are being met. According to the most recent data supplied by USDA, only about 22 percent of those children who received a regular school lunch also received a summer meal. Again according to USDA, participation ranges from over 53 percent in the District of Columbia to under 3 percent in Alaska. My home state of Indiana serves under 10 percent of these children. In August, I visited the successful summer feeding program implemented this year by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation in Indiana. I discussed with community leaders ideas to encourage more participation in the program throughout my home state. Mr. President, hunger does not take a summer vacation. We need to examine new means of encouraging local entities to agree to offer the summer food service program in poor areas. In talking with program experts, a recurring problem they mentioned regarding the decision to enter the program was the amount of paperwork necessary to gain USDA approval. That is why we propose today legislation to provide a targeted method of increasing participation in those states with very low participation. This method will be tested for a few years to see if it is effective and, thus, should be extended to all states. Under current SFSP law, sponsors get a food cost reimbursement and an administrative reimbursement of the amounts that they document, up to a maximum amount. Based on the most recent data available, SFSP sponsors document costs sufficient to receive the maximum reimbursement over 90 percent of the time. Some institutions (e.g., schools, parks departments) may not offer the SFSP because they do not want to put up with the administrative burden of documenting all their costs in a manner acceptable to USDA. Under the regular school lunch program, schools do not have to document their costs, but instead automatically receive their meal reimbursements. The extra paperwork burden of documenting all their costs may discourage sponsors from offering summer meals. Public sponsors, such as schools and parks departments, have to meet public accounting standards that make it unlikely that money meant for child nutrition could be siphoned off and used for unlawful purposes. My bill would establish a pilot project to reduce the paperwork required of schools and other public institutions (like parks departments) to run a summer food service program, and thus, hopefully, encourage more sponsors to join the program and offer summer meals. The bill would allow, in low participation states, public sponsors to automatically receive the maximum reimbursement for both food costs and administrative costs. In this way, the SFSP would be identical to the school lunch program. Low participation states would be defined as those states where the number of children receiving summer meals (compared to the number receiving free or reduced price lunches during the school year) was less than half the national average participation in the summer meals programs (compared to the number receiving free or reduced price lunches during the school year). This pilot program would run for 3 years, FY 01 to FY 03. USDA would be required to study whether reducing the paperwork burden increased participation in the program. USDA would also be required to study whether meal quality or program integrity was affected by removing the requirement for sponsors to document their spending. Results of the study will be available for the 2003 child nutrition reauthorization. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the summer food service program, which provides summer meals to poor children. On an average school day in 1999, nearly 27 million children received lunches supported by the national school lunch program. Of that total, over 15 million of these children were poor. Over 7 million children participated in the school breakfast program and more than 6 million of these children were poor. These statistics clearly show that the American people are generous and compassionate regarding the nutritional status of our children, especially poor children who may not have access to enough food at home. However, most of these poor children lose access to school lunches and breakfasts once the school year is over. The Federal Government does have programs to provide summer meals, but only about 22 percent of the poor children who get a school lunch also get a summer meal. Common sense tells us that children's hunger does not go on vacation at the end of the school year. Basically, children can receive federally subsidized summer meals in 2 ways: through the summer food service program; or, if they are in summer school or year-round school, through the regular national school lunch and school breakfast programs. Summer school and year-round school students can get the regular school lunch and breakfast programs. Just as in the regular school year, students can receive free, reduced price or full price meals, depending upon their families' income. In July 1999, 1.1 million children received free or reduced price meals this way. The summer food service program was created to provide summer meals for children who are not in summer school or year-round school. The establishment of a summer food service program site depends upon a local entity agreeing to operate a site. At the local level, the summer food service program (SFSP) is run by approved sponsors, including school districts, local government agencies, camps, private nonprofit organizations or post-secondary schools sponsoring NCAA National Youth Sports Programs. Sponsors provide free meals to a group of children at a central site, such as a school or a community center or at satellite sites, such as playgrounds. Sponsors receive payments from USDA, through their State agencies, for the documented food costs of the meals they serve and for their documented operating costs. The program is targeted toward serving poor children. States approve SFSP meal sites as open, enrolled, or camp sites. Open sites operate in low-income area where at least half of the children come from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level, making them eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Meals and snacks are served free to any child at the open site. Enrolled sites provide free meals to all children enrolled in an activity program at the site if at least half of them are eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Camps may also participate in SFSP. They receive payments only for the meals served to children who are eligible for free and reduced- price school meals. At most sites, children receive either one or two reimbursable meals or a meal and a snack each day. Camps and sites that primarily serve migrant children may be approved to serve up to three meals to each child, each day. Participation in the SFSP and the summer portion of the school lunch program varies widely by State. Comparing the number of low-income children in summer programs to the number who get free and reduced price meals during the regular school year gives a reasonable measure of how well the summer meal needs of low-income children are being met. According to the most recent data supplied by USDA, only about 22 percent of those children who received a regular school lunch also received a summer meal. Again according to USDA, participation ranges from over 53 percent in the District of Columbia to under 3 percent in Alaska. My home state of Indiana serves under 10 percent of these children. In August, I visited the successful summer feeding program implemented this year by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation in Indiana. I discussed with community leaders ideas to encourage more participation in the program throughout my home state. Mr. President, hunger does not take a summer vacation. We need to examine new means of encouraging local entities to agree to offer the summer food service program in poor areas. In talking with program experts, a recurring problem they mentioned regarding the decision to enter the program was the amount of paperwork necessary to gain USDA approval. That is why we propose today legislation to provide a targeted method of increasing participation in those states with very low participation. This method will be tested for a few years to see if it is effective and, thus, should be extended to all states. Under current SFSP law, sponsors get a food cost reimbursement and an administrative reimbursement of the amounts that they document, up to a maximum amount. Based on the most recent data available, SFSP sponsors document costs sufficient to receive the maximum reimbursement over 90 percent of the time. Some institutions (e.g., schools, parks departments) may not offer the SFSP because they do not want to put up with the administrative burden of documenting all their costs in a manner acceptable to USDA. Under the regular school lunch program, schools do not have to document their costs, but instead automatically receive their meal reimbursements. The extra paperwork burden of documenting all their costs may discourage sponsors from offering summer meals. Public sponsors, such as schools and parks departments, have to meet public accounting standards that make it unlikely that money meant for child nutrition could be siphoned off and used for unlawful purposes. My bill would establish a pilot project to reduce the paperwork required of schools and other public institutions (like parks departments) to run a summer food service program, and thus, hopefully, encourage more sponsors to join the program and offer summer meals. The bill would allow, in low participation states, public sponsors to automatically receive the maximum reimbursement for both food costs and administrative costs. In this way, the SFSP would be identical to the school lunch program. Low participation states would be defined as those states where the number of children receiving summer meals (compared to the number receiving free or reduced price lunches during the school year) was less than half the national average participation in the summer meals programs (compared to the number receiving free or reduced price lunches during the school year). This pilot program would run for 3 years, FY 01 to FY 03. USDA would be required to study whether reducing the paperwork burden increased participation in the program. USDA would also be required to study whether meal quality or program integrity was affected by removing the requirement for sponsors to document their spending. Results of the study will be available for the 2003 child nutrition reauthorization. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on September 12, 2000 in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the operation of the Office of Civil Rights, USDA, and the role of the Office of General Counsel, USDA. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Feinstein and other Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce the Unilateral Palestinian Statehood Disapproval Act of 2000. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. At the conclusion of the July round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at Camp David, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat issued a statement agreeing on the importance of ``avoiding unilateral action that prejudices the outcome of negotiations.'' They both acknowledged that progress is best assured if both parties refrain from unilateral actions that would have the effect of undermining the peace process. After the Camp David talks ended, Chairman Arafat announced that he intended to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state by September 13 if negotiations with Israel did not conclude in a satisfactory manner by then. Such a statement is harmful to the negotiations and would be disastrous to the peace process. It is important for the Congress to be heard on this issue. A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is objectionable and would create an unnecessary rupture in our ability to work with the Palestinian Authority to advance the peace process. It is my hope that Chairman Arafat will listen to the voices of other leaders in the Arab world, and elsewhere, which have counseled caution and urged him to refrain from these unilateral steps toward statehood. Our legislation proposes several targeted limitations and restrictions on the Palestinian Authority should they decide to declare a Palestinian state in advance of a final agreement. It states that if Chairman Arafat unilaterally declares a Palestinian state, the U.S. should not recognize it, that we should work with our friends and allies not to recognize any such state, and that we should downgrade the Palestinian office in the United States to an information office. The legislation places limitations on official U.S. assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state but provides exceptions for cooperation on anti-terrorism and security matters. Our bill also urges the President to oppose membership to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state in the United Nations and to oppose any economic and financial assistance from the U.N., affiliated agencies and international financial institutions. It is my hope that none of these restrictions will have to be implemented. Because we want to insure that the President can use all the tools available to him to assist the parties to succeed in the peace negotiations, we included a presidential national interest waiver authority on those provisions pertaining to economic and financial assistance. I hope my colleagues will agree to support this legislation and the long-standing effort to construct a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Feinstein and other Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce the Unilateral Palestinian Statehood Disapproval Act of 2000. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. At the conclusion of the July round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at Camp David, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat issued a statement agreeing on the importance of ``avoiding unilateral action that prejudices the outcome of negotiations.'' They both acknowledged that progress is best assured if both parties refrain from unilateral actions that would have the effect of undermining the peace process. After the Camp David talks ended, Chairman Arafat announced that he intended to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state by September 13 if negotiations with Israel did not conclude in a satisfactory manner by then. Such a statement is harmful to the negotiations and would be disastrous to the peace process. It is important for the Congress to be heard on this issue. A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is objectionable and would create an unnecessary rupture in our ability to work with the Palestinian Authority to advance the peace process. It is my hope that Chairman Arafat will listen to the voices of other leaders in the Arab world, and elsewhere, which have counseled caution and urged him to refrain from these unilateral steps toward statehood. Our legislation proposes several targeted limitations and restrictions on the Palestinian Authority should they decide to declare a Palestinian state in advance of a final agreement. It states that if Chairman Arafat unilaterally declares a Palestinian state, the U.S. should not recognize it, that we should work with our friends and allies not to recognize any such state, and that we should downgrade the Palestinian office in the United States to an information office. The legislation places limitations on official U.S. assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state but provides exceptions for cooperation on anti-terrorism and security matters. Our bill also urges the President to oppose membership to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state in the United Nations and to oppose any economic and financial assistance from the U.N., affiliated agencies and international financial institutions. It is my hope that none of these restrictions will have to be implemented. Because we want to insure that the President can use all the tools available to him to assist the parties to succeed in the peace negotiations, we included a presidential national interest waiver authority on those provisions pertaining to economic and financial assistance. I hope my colleagues will agree to support this legislation and the long-standing effort to construct a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 26, 2000, in SH-216 at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Federal sugar program. committee on agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 27, 2000, in SH- 216 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review proposals to establish an international school lunch program. committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the role of unilateral economic sanctions in the conduct of American foreign policy has been part of our debate in the Congress and in the executive branch for the past three years. Attempts to modify or reform the way the United States utilizes unilateral economic sanctions in the conduct of our foreign policy have consumed the attention of several committees, spawned numerous sanctions reform bills--including my own efforts--resolutions and amendments, generated a number of floor debates, stimulated countless discussions within this body and with the administration and prompted many press conferences and news releases. It even moved the distinguished Majority Leader to appoint an ad hoc bipartisan Senate task force to sort through the issue in the hopes of finding a policy path or sanctions that best promotes our national interest. Outside the United States Government, virtually every think tank, university, trade association, and foreign policy association has invested time and resources to studying, analyzing and making recommendations on the subject of unilateral economic sanctions. This is as it should be. The subject is integral to our approach on foreign policy, national security and international trade. I have been pleased that our debate and the large volume of literature have led to considerable re-thinking about the efficacy of unilateral economic sanctions. I have noted that the frequent resort to use of unilateral sanctions to achieve foreign policy goals has declined and that our sophistication about the inter-relationship between unilateral economic sanctions and policy has grown dramatically. One of the most important players in our debate over the past few years has been the unique coalition of some 675 export- oriented companies in the United States called USA*ENGAGE. They have been critical in helping to shape the debate on unilateral economic sanctions, a debate which continues virtually as I speak. I recently read a short speech by Mr. William Lane who serves as the Chairman of the USA*ENGAGE trade association and the Washington Director of Caterpillar corporation titled ``USA*ENGAGE: Lessons Learned: The Cost of Conducting Foreign Policy on the Cheap.'' The remarks were offered at the French Institute on International Relations last month. I believe my colleagues will find Mr. Lane's remarks insightful and informed so I ask unanimous consent that the full speech be printed in the Record.