Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I rise to oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. He clearly is a strong proponent and advocate of democracy and has stimulated discussion on these issues as a valued member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The National Endowment for Democracy which was founded in 1983 included the so-called four ``core'' groups from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Organized Labor, and the Chamber of Commerce. That foundation was deliberate. It was not a question of a strange arrangement in which four groups in Washington sequestered the funds for their own benefit. Very clearly, President Reagan and a bipartisan majority of the Congress found that the checks and balances inherent in that debate were very important in making certain that the National Endowment for Democracy was not politicized. Let me mention that to have competition in which as many as 250 groups interested in democracy compete for money, almost guarantees a substantial bureaucracy to vet all of the points of view and applications. Furthermore, under the worst of circumstances, it does not necessarily bring about a strong bipartisan scrutiny of each other's proposals, quite apart from the scrutiny that organized labor might get from the Chamber of Commerce and vice versa. In fact, the system has worked remarkably well. I have served as a member of the Board of the National Endowment for Democracy during the past 8 years. I have witnessed the process in which the Board--which is not divorced from the debate in Washington-- thinks through those areas of the world that need specific emphasis. Each of the four core groups is charged with finding proposals and finding specific groups, often in countries that are emerging democracies, to bring forward ways in which democracy might be enhanced. Sometimes it is under very arduous and dangerous circumstances. It is only after the core groups make their proposals, having reviewed them thoroughly, that the staff of the National Endowment for Democracy scrutinize them, ask for amendments, suggest changes, delays or rejection. Specific members of the Board who have particular expertise in various areas of the world spend a great deal of time pro bono taking a very careful look at those proposals. But finally, each one of us, as Board members, must pass on each and every single one of these grant applications. On occasion we reject a fair number during a meeting, quite apart from whether a quota of grants has been allocated specifically to the four. Each of the four ``cores'' has the ability and the talents to bring forward remarkable proposals for the advancement of democracy. That has been occurring for the past 16 years. The Foreign Relations committee has not held hearings on this proposal. It comes literally out of the blue. It may have some merit for another organization at another time, but for this organization the genius was in its initial inception--an opportunity to bring forward proposals that were not coming from the U.S. Government, from the State Department, from the White House, or the National Security Council. It brought forward proposals from well-defined institutions in our society that are broadly based--members of the Democratic and Republican parties, often elected officials, responsible to their constituents, who are well aware of political currents in the country, and the institutions that characterize our national Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. As a matter of fact, the Solidarity movement found resonance with the AFL-CIO. It was the labor movement of our country that brought forward one of the most significant sets of proposals and advocacy. It is a fact that at the recent 50th anniversary NATO celebration, one of the great honors paid in this city was by the National Endowment for Democracy to Lech Walesa. In many ways, Lech Walesa's leadership, courageous as it was at a turning point in history, was a hallmark of the work of the National Endowment. The checks and balances were at work, because other groups took a look at the labor/Solidarity situation in Poland and wondered whether it was appropriate for the United States Government to be appropriating funds that led to the change of government in that country. On balance, our Government appropriated those funds but the National Endowment did make the decisions. They were outside the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, outside the politicization that occurs when one party or another gains dominance and a particular type of preferential structure. I make these points because I believe this is an arrangement that works well. If the wagon isn't broke, we should not try to fix it. The situation is clearly one that does not require any fixing. There may be institutions in our society that wish we had established a different sort of endowment. I suspect that if Members are prepared to vote for this amendment, it will be a very different National Endowment for Democracy. But I caution Members about the dangers of making these changes. Therefore, I ask for careful consideration by Members. I ask, in fact, consideration of the remarkable work that is now being done by the National Endowment for Democracy and the 16 years of very solid achievement by many great Americans who were outside of our Government, but who participated in boosting democracy through this vehicle. I ask, therefore, for the defeat of the Feingold amendment. I am hopeful that as the votes are counted tomorrow, the National Endowment will receive a vote of endorsement. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman recently announced reforms for the Federal milk marketing order system. These reforms were authorized by the 1996 farm bill in an effort to modernize and streamline an out-dated and arcane structure for pricing the nation's milk. As was the case with other commodities, the farm bill intended that Federal dairy policy be more modern and market-oriented to reflect innovations in the milk industry and to position the United States to become a major trader in world markets. In announcing the reforms, Secretary Glickman said, ``These reforms will help make sure that America's dairy farmers receive a fair price and that American consumers continue to enjoy an abundant, affordable supply of milk. Our changes will also simplify the wholesale milk pricing system, making it more market-oriented and more equitable.'' The changes are positive steps toward accomplishing the goals stated by the secretary. The new structure is more market-oriented, more beneficial to consumers and more equitable to farmers across the Nation. During consideration of the 1996 farm bill, Congress could not agree on a policy to modernize milk marketing orders. The task of designing a consumer-friendly and market-oriented program was turned over to the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary was given until 1999 to design this new policy. In the interim between 1996 and 1999, Congress allowed the northeast region of the country to set up a dairy compact in which producers could receive a higher price for their milk. Authority for the compact was scheduled to end with the implementation of the new milk marketing order policy. On January 2, 1998, as Secretary Glickman prepared to consider changes to federal dairy policy, I wrote to him suggesting several ways to make dairy policy more consumer friendly and market oriented. Included in my recommendations was an overhaul of Class I differentials which set the prices that farmers receive for fluid milk. Shortly thereafter, USDA released its proposed rule for milk marketing order reform. The proposed rule contained seven different options for pricing structures and noted Secretary Glickman's preference for the more market-oriented ``Option 1B'' for pricing Class I milk. On February 25, 1998, I again wrote to Secretary Glickman in support of his commitment to a more market-oriented approach and made recommendations for other changes that modernize federal dairy policy. The contents of the final rule were highly controversial. No one interested in dairy policy--producers, processors or consumers--was satisfied. Contradictory bills to amend portions of the final rule were introduced in both chambers of Congress. If I had written the final rule, I would have made some changes also. However, we should reflect on the entire rule and the process that led to its promulgation. Because of the complexity of, and controversies surrounding, dairy policy, Congress, in the 1996 farm bill, gave USDA the responsibility to draw upon its expertise, consult with the public and design a thoughtful milk marketing reform policy. USDA spent three years formulating the reforms contained in the final rule. During this process, the department received more than 8,000 comments from interested parties. The final rule, though not perfect, is more equitable to all the nation's dairy farmers and pro-consumer. It is a good first step toward a policy that places the nation's dairy industry in a position to better meet the challenges of the global markets of the new century. When we begin deliberations on the next farm bill, we will have an opportunity to review and develop additional market-oriented reforms for dairy policy. But, I am convinced that the Congress cannot improve upon the department's good-faith, balanced effort either in committee or on the Senate floor. If dairy farmers approve the new policy in referenda in their order areas, we should allow the final rule to be implemented on October 1, as scheduled, without intervening legislation and I will work toward that end.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will meet on May 18, 1999, in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss noxious weeds and plant pests. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the USDA Information Technology Reform and Year-2000 Compliance Act of 1999. This legislation aims to centralize all year 2000 computer conversion and other information technology acquisition and management activities within the Office of the Chief Information Office of the Department of Agriculture. Centralization is the most efficient way to manage the complex and important task of ensuring that all critical computer functions at the department are operational on January 1, 2000. It is also a wiser and more cost-effective way to construct an information technology infrastructure to enable USDA's hundreds of computer systems to interoperate, which unfortunately they cannot now do. The Department of Agriculture is charged with enormous responsibilities and its year 2000 readiness is crucial. It has a diverse portfolio of over 200 Federal programs throughout the Nation and the world. The department delivers about $80 billion in programs. It is the fourth largest Federal agency, with 31 agencies and offices. The department is responsible for the safety of our food supply, nutrition programs that serve the poor, young and old, and the protection of our natural resources. Since more than 40 percent of the non-tax debt owed to the Federal Government is owed to USDA, the department has a responsibility to ensure the financial soundness of taxpayers' investments. Responsibility for keeping the mission-critical information technology functioning should clearly rest with the Chief Information Officer. The decentralized approach to the year 2000 issue at USDA led to a lack of focus on departmental priorities. Each agency was allowed to determine what services, programs, and activities it deemed important enough to be operational at the end of the millennium. This decentralized approach also led to a lack of guidance, oversight and the development of contingency plans. Efforts to rectify this situation are well underway. I am pleased that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has pledged his personal commitment to the success of year 2000 compliance and has made it one of the highest priorities for USDA. In fiscal year 1999, USDA plans to spend more than $1.2 billion on information technology and related information resources management activities, including year 2000 computer compliance. The General Accounting Office has chronicled USDA's long history of problems in managing its substantial information technology investments. The GAO reports that such ineffective planning and management have resulted in USDA's wasting millions of dollars on computer systems. Last year, I introduced S. 2116, a bill to reform the information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture. It gave the Chief Information Officer control over the planning, development, and acquisition of information technology at the department. Introduction of that bill and similar legislation in 1997 prompted some coordination of information technology among the department's agencies and offices. However, component agencies are still allowed to independently acquire and manage information technology investments solely on the basis of their own parochial interests or needs. This legislation is needed to strengthen that coordination and ensure that centralized information technology management continues in the future. This legislation further requires that the Chief Information Officer manage the design and implementation of an information technology architecture based on strategic business plans that maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's program activities. Included in the bill is authority for the Chief Information Officer to approve expenditures for information resources and for year 2000 compliance purposes, except for minor acquisitions. To accomplish these purposes, the bill requires that each agency transfer up to 10 percent of its information technology budget to the Chief Information Officer's control. The bill makes the Chief Information Officer responsible for ensuring that the information technology architecture facilitates a flexible common computing environment for the field service centers based on integrated program delivery. The architecture will also provide maximum data sharing with USDA customers and other Federal and state agencies, which is expected to result in a significant reduction in operating costs. Mr. President, this is a bill whose time has come. Unfortunately, USDA's problems in managing information technology are not unusual among Government agencies, according to the General Accounting Office. I commend the attention of my colleagues to this bill designed to address a portion of the information resource management problems of the Federal Government and ask for their support of it. Mr. President, I ask that the full text and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the USDA Information Technology Reform and Year-2000 Compliance Act of 1999. This legislation aims to centralize all year 2000 computer conversion and other information technology acquisition and management activities within the Office of the Chief Information Office of the Department of Agriculture. Centralization is the most efficient way to manage the complex and important task of ensuring that all critical computer functions at the department are operational on January 1, 2000. It is also a wiser and more cost-effective way to construct an information technology infrastructure to enable USDA's hundreds of computer systems to interoperate, which unfortunately they cannot now do. The Department of Agriculture is charged with enormous responsibilities and its year 2000 readiness is crucial. It has a diverse portfolio of over 200 Federal programs throughout the Nation and the world. The department delivers about $80 billion in programs. It is the fourth largest Federal agency, with 31 agencies and offices. The department is responsible for the safety of our food supply, nutrition programs that serve the poor, young and old, and the protection of our natural resources. Since more than 40 percent of the non-tax debt owed to the Federal Government is owed to USDA, the department has a responsibility to ensure the financial soundness of taxpayers' investments. Responsibility for keeping the mission-critical information technology functioning should clearly rest with the Chief Information Officer. The decentralized approach to the year 2000 issue at USDA led to a lack of focus on departmental priorities. Each agency was allowed to determine what services, programs, and activities it deemed important enough to be operational at the end of the millennium. This decentralized approach also led to a lack of guidance, oversight and the development of contingency plans. Efforts to rectify this situation are well underway. I am pleased that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has pledged his personal commitment to the success of year 2000 compliance and has made it one of the highest priorities for USDA. In fiscal year 1999, USDA plans to spend more than $1.2 billion on information technology and related information resources management activities, including year 2000 computer compliance. The General Accounting Office has chronicled USDA's long history of problems in managing its substantial information technology investments. The GAO reports that such ineffective planning and management have resulted in USDA's wasting millions of dollars on computer systems. Last year, I introduced S. 2116, a bill to reform the information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture. It gave the Chief Information Officer control over the planning, development, and acquisition of information technology at the department. Introduction of that bill and similar legislation in 1997 prompted some coordination of information technology among the department's agencies and offices. However, component agencies are still allowed to independently acquire and manage information technology investments solely on the basis of their own parochial interests or needs. This legislation is needed to strengthen that coordination and ensure that centralized information technology management continues in the future. This legislation further requires that the Chief Information Officer manage the design and implementation of an information technology architecture based on strategic business plans that maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's program activities. Included in the bill is authority for the Chief Information Officer to approve expenditures for information resources and for year 2000 compliance purposes, except for minor acquisitions. To accomplish these purposes, the bill requires that each agency transfer up to 10 percent of its information technology budget to the Chief Information Officer's control. The bill makes the Chief Information Officer responsible for ensuring that the information technology architecture facilitates a flexible common computing environment for the field service centers based on integrated program delivery. The architecture will also provide maximum data sharing with USDA customers and other Federal and state agencies, which is expected to result in a significant reduction in operating costs. Mr. President, this is a bill whose time has come. Unfortunately, USDA's problems in managing information technology are not unusual among Government agencies, according to the General Accounting Office. I commend the attention of my colleagues to this bill designed to address a portion of the information resource management problems of the Federal Government and ask for their support of it. Mr. President, I ask that the full text and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will meet on May 8, 1999 in Nampa, ID starting at 9 a.m. at the City Council Chambers. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the noxious weeds and plant pest problems. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, will meet on May 5, 1999 in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be: (1) To consider the nomination of Thomas J. Erickson to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and (2) To discuss agricultural trade options. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I respond briefly to my colleague that I believe the President must begin to offer that leadership, that he must begin to offer the strategy. I find it unacceptable if we were, as critics of the President, simply to note that he has failed to do so. In other words, it seems to me there is about this war a sense of unreality. Clearly, if we had been in the so-called cold war period and we were at war with another country at that point, and the President apparently did not have an adequate strategy and we were losing, it would not be a useful question to ask why the President hasn't asked for what he needs. We have to say at that point that the President needs to ask. We respectfully request the President to accept some advice and to accept some strategy that we have a responsibility to offer. Simply left to an inadequate President, history would condemn him, but we would lose and the country would suffer grievous harm. That is our predicament in this situation. The President clearly hasn't asked for the authority, the arms, or whatever he needs. We are saying he needs to ask, and he needs to do so rapidly. We cannot sit around and simply wish that he did so and then lament that he failed to ask. We have a responsibility to act along with him. I hope and pray that he will do that. I think the President, in this conversation the Senator cited, indicated he could ask General Shelton and General Shelton could produce a plan. In fact, allied armed services could be over there about 5 months and the President felt that might win the war. We need to define very carefully, if that is the case, what the ground forces' objectives are, where they come in, and include all the options. In other words, that was a rather sweeping statement, but it has gone through the President's mind and what we are suggesting might have some impact. I hope this debate pushes that forward. I thank the Senator for his question.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I thank the distinguished sponsor of this legislation, Senator McCain, for yielding to me. I congratulate him on the resolution. I will advocate that the Senate should affirm the McCain resolution. Certainly, we should not table the resolution. Madam President, a week after the war began, I wrote in the Washington Post: We are losing the war in Kosovo. President Slobodan Milosevic and his Serbian Armed Forces are killing Kosovar political leaders, expelling Kosovars from their homes, and causing a flow of refugees into countries with few resources to care for them. The United States and NATO have the capacity to reverse this situation, but this will require presidential leadership and a commitment to taking the hard steps necessary to win. I wrote, additionally, in the same column: President Clinton still has the chance, as our Commander in Chief, to produce victory, even if what he advocated was based on a hopelessly incomplete vision of the end game and a dubious strategy to reach even severely limited aims. Madam President, I wrote that on April 1--a month ago--and the situation is identical to that which I described then. We have an opportunity to win the war. We have an opportunity to come to the limited objective the President has listed, but this will require very, very substantial Presidential leadership, hard decisions on the part of our President, and support of those decisions by the American people, as represented by this Congress. I come today not to argue procedure. I regret, as others do, that we are in a predicament of a 4-hour debate, and a tabling motion was announced in the national press. The leadership of both parties will advocate tabling and disposing of this resolution, thus ending the chapter until, presumably, a more appropriate time to discuss Kosovo. But I come not to lament that fact. It is part of our circumstances, and we shall have the vote in due course and I will vote ``no'' on the motion to table. I come today not to argue whether we should specifically authorize the President to use air power, as they have done in the House by a 213-213 vote, to temporize on that issue, not on the issue of ground forces, nor whether we have to be consulted before there are ground forces, or any other forces. We are presently talking about a situation in which the President has set forth some very limited objectives. In my judgment, we have very little hope of meeting those limited objectives, and that translates into defeat for the United States of America, and for NATO. People talk about whether this is the right war, the war we were preparing for, whoever that may have been. We are in a war. It is a big war. It is the only war NATO ever had. It is an occasion for the North Atlantic treaty alliance to work, or for it to fail. While we can fault our President and others while putting NATO at stake, and we can fault the President for failing to have the resources prepared; for a faulty diplomacy that produced one threat after another, which required some follow-through for credibility; for failure to say from the beginning we have to plan for every potential use of our resources, and we are doing so because we are intent upon coming to the right result. All of that might have occurred. But, it did not. As I pointed out on April 1, it had not happened then, and it hasn't occurred since. But what has occurred is a very clear statement of objectives, and they are: the retreat, the withdrawal, the end of Serbian forces in Kosovo-- out, all 43,000 of them, whether they are police, special police, regular armed forces, or paramilitary forces--these are the people, these particular Serbians, who, in fact, are killing people in Kosovo and expelling those they do not kill from their homes and their country. So, the first objective is all of these forces must leave Kosovo. The second objective is the Kosovars must be allowed back in. There must be a condition in which people who have lost their loved ones, who have watched atrocities, who have suffered grievously and lost their identities, their bank accounts, their houses, to go back into their country where there has to be an international security force in which they believe--not in which we believe or that we temporize with others, and say a little bit of this or that country, a little balance here and there. The question will be: Do the Kosovars believe in it? Will they go back? If they do not, they are going to be in Macedonia, Albania, and increasingly in Italy, Germany, everywhere, spilling out all over Europe, hundreds of thousands of souls who require support--expensive people, people who could destabilize the economies and the governments of the host countries that have been so generous. We have barely a month of humanitarian relief, and we understand how tragic it is for those people, how expensive and dangerous it is for the countries in the surrounding area. That has already happened. You cannot walk away from that. We can take a resolution today and say this wasn't our war and we are tired of it or that we are bored with it or, as a matter of fact, we don't even want to participate anymore. But for the suffering people that are a consequence of this conflict, there is no walking away, and the consequences for us, for Europe, for NATO, for our Armed Forces morale, for civilian leadership intersecting with the Armed Forces, are very great. So I am saying that you have to have an international force that gives confidence enough to the people who have lost almost everything to go back. There has to be money to pay for the houses they go back to, for the lights and the water, and the possibilities of making a living, and of some safety net of economic support while all that is happening. Who will pay for that? Congressional leaders asked the President. He said the Europeans will take the preponderant share of that. I hope that is true. I hope the President has worked that out, or has broached that, or at least has some assurance of exactly how burdensharing will go--for humanitarian purposes or military purposes. This is terribly important and very expensive, and lying directly ahead, either in Kosovo, in Macedonia, Albania, or other countries. Madam President, after these expelled people get back and the money is spent--and we hope to do much of this before the cold weather comes--as the President has pointed out with regard to the bombing raids in September and October--then at this point, negotiations proceed on the tortuous path on what kind of democracy in Kosovo, within the constraints of an autonomous province of Serbia but protected by an international force sufficiently strong, armed, and credible to the Kosovars so that they will come back and try to rebuild their country. That will be a very difficult negotiation. If you were a Kosovar who had gone through all of this--and there are people advocating independence--the siren song of independence is pretty strong. Yet European countries all around are advocating no independence; that is not on the table. As the President has outlined our objective, independence is not on the table. It is autonomy, where people think about self-government within constraints. Those are the objectives, narrow as they may be. Madam President, we had all better be giving a lot of thought as to how they might be met. I believe that the McCain resolution is important because it says to the President, ``Mr. President, take all necessary ways and means to win, to find your objective, the objectives now shared by 18 other NATO allies.'' It is important that the President do that. Normally, there might be a situation in which the President had planned for several months before the war in Kosovo to preposition equipment, to consider ground troops in Europe in addition to air resources, and other provisions, including provisions for humanitarian fallout that might occur. Ideally, all of that might have happened. But it didn't happen. As a matter of fact, the nation's attention was not on Kosovo, except from time to time throughout this period of time. And certainly there were no Presidential messages to the American people indicating the gravity of the situation, and very little debate here on the floor of the Senate. So that planning might have happened. But it did not. We are now in a predicament where we are in a very large war, where the consequences are very great. We have limited objectives, but, in my judgment--I have expressed this candidly and personally to the President--we do not have the means to achieve those objectives. We have not had the means from the very beginning of the operation. In his defense, the President stoutly affirms that the bombing campaign will do it, that you can get to those objectives with the bombing campaign alone. He would also add, some helpful information getting into a Serbia--some better control of that situation will be helpful. So would help by the Russians--and help by anybody, for that matter. But, nevertheless, the President from the beginning said no ground forces. He has followed up and said, ``I am not even planning for ground forces.'' He has almost taken pride in saying there will be no planning for ground forces; it is the bombing campaign. I have said to the President respectfully, ``Mr. President, you have to have at least plan B. There has to be a safety net. We cannot suffer failure. You cannot suffer failure.'' There may be some Members of Congress--we read about these people in the paper who say, ``This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that is his problem. He deserves it, having ill prepared for this, having very little strategy that seems to be relevant to getting the job done.'' Madam President, we got over that very rapidly. This is not the President falling on his face. It is not a personal failure of the President. We are in a war. The United States is at war--not President Clinton. I think what Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, Senator Biden, and others have been saying in essence is, ``Mr. President, we need a much broader strategy. We need more options.'' I have said specifically we need, at a minimum, a public declaration that we are planning ground options--lots of them. We don't know what the situation will be on the ground 5 months from now, but we had better have some options, and it had been better be apparent we are doing that, for our own credibility. Furthermore, we could preposition supplies and equipment conspicuously so forces can get there, as opposed to constantly saying it will be weeks or months before we can do anything as an excuse for not doing so. I am advised that the American people in various polls have a low tolerance for casualties. Some people have crassly suggested: What if 100 Americans lost their lives? Would you still be in favor of the war? Would you be in favor of ground forces? How about 200 or 500? At what point do you say, after America loses, we leave; that is an unacceptable set of circumstances? In polls, however, it may test the political courage of the President, or any of us. If the President is failing even to say, ``I will think about planning for the ground option,'' because he is reading polls that say that is very unpopular, very unacceptable, then the President needs to get over that too, as we do here on the floor of the Senate. We are talking now about the fate of our country--our credibility with regard to foreign policy and the Armed Forces. We can say, regardless of Kosovo, we are ready for the real war, or the big war, or whatever war comes along. But, Madam President, with what? What kind of political will? What kind of ability to pull this country together, and Congress, and the people? What kind of ability to keep the alliance together with some credibility that we are for real, and that when we go to war, we go to win? And having set the objectives, knowing very clearly what they are, we have to get to the point of winning. The McCain resolution is tremendously important, because it simply says, ``Mr. President, you have got to do more--a lot more. You have to lead. You have to have a strategy that finally says to whomever-- President Milosevic and anybody else--we are going to win, we are going to prevail, the United States means it.'' If we are not prepared to give the President that support, if our debate degenerates into the fact that: ``Mr. President, we would like for you to win. We would like for the alliance to be credible. But do we think everything doesn't really work? We certainly don't want to do the ground forces option. We are not really sure about the money, the humanitarian relief, if the Europeans don't do their share. And we haven't worked it out with them. As a matter of fact, we don't know why we are there and why we got there, and we don't really want to know. We are tired of hearing about the history of this part of the world over the past thousand years. What we really want to know now is specifically, how do we get out of a bad dream?'' As Senators, we are not movie critics. We are not taking a look at a scenario which is a bad dream. We have a responsibility, and the responsibility today is to vote no. The responsibility is to say that it is not simply the President who is responsible--the President's war, the President's plan, the President's request that, if somehow he is inadequate, we simply affirm that and say how sad that he is inadequate. Madam President, if we lose the war, the fact is, the Congress is inadequate. We also are elected by the people. We also have a constitutional responsibility and, when it comes to war, a responsibility to win. If the President needs shoring up, that may be our job. If the President needs concerted advice and support, we ought to provide it. There could be other resolutions today, but we have in front of us a big one. It does not come as a surprise that Senator McCain's resolution has been well debated throughout the country, even if not here. What will be a surprise today, Madam President, is if Senators, Members of this body, are prepared to take some responsibility as opposed to arguing, as I have already heard, that the resolution is too broad, too sweeping, a blank check for a President in whom many Senators are not certain they have confidence to prosecute the war. These are useful rationalizations before a war but not in the middle of one. It is a war, not just an exercise; however divorced it may be from our lives, that is not the case for those who are involved. I am hopeful we will vote no on the tabling motion. I propose that we leave the options open to the President. I propose that as opposed to proscriptive motions--that, in the future we offer advice as to how we can help the President and we try to affirm that certain things should be done, as opposed to taking off the table the necessary means that he may need. In response to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act, with the goal of advancing biotechnologies likely to offer outstanding benefits in terms of strategic security, reduction of greenhouse gases and healthier rural economies. At the heart of the National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act is a novel research Initiative, jointly administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, that authorizes research for the purpose of overcoming technical barriers to low cost biomass conversion and gives priority funding to consortia composed of technical experts from academia, national laboratories, Federal research agencies and industry. By enhancing creative and imaginative approaches toward biomass processing, the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Research Initiative will serve to develop the next generation of advanced technologies making possible low cost biobased industrial products. Innovative in both purpose and structure, the Initiative will promote integrated research partnerships as the best means of overcoming technical challenges that span multiple academic disciplines while also leveraging scarce Federal discretionary spending. 49 million dollars per annum is proposed for the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Research Initiative; funding is authorized for six years, through 2005. Given the potential benefits in improved national security, rural development and greenhouse gas reductions, this expenditure represents an investment in America's future and is in line with recommendations from a report of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The legislation will also coordinate and focus Federal research in cellulosic biomass processing through creation of the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Board consisting of senior representatives from the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Co-chaired by designees of the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy, the Board shall coordinate research, development and demonstration activities relating to biobased industrial products between the Departments of Energy and Agriculture which are the two principal agencies for biotechnology research on fuels, chemicals and power. The Board will also serve to coordinate research activities across the many Federal agencies that are involved in research, regulation and policy formulation of fuels, commodity chemicals and power. To advise the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy on the technical focus and direction of the request for proposals issued under the research Initiative, a Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Technical Advisory Committee is established. Modeled on the National Defense Sciences Board, the Advisory Committee consists of experts from academia, prominent engineers and scientists, representatives from commodity trade organizations and environmental or conservation groups. As an independent panel of technical experts, the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Technical Advisory Committee will serve an important role in the strategic planning and oversight of research carried out under the Initiative. The case for promoting technology that will supply fuels, notably ethanol, chemicals and power from cellulosic biomass can be made independently of whether the world will continue to enjoy cheap oil. However, a wealth of scientific data indicates both that the world's supply of conventional oil is nearly half exhausted and that with each passing year, the demand for petroleum-derived energy increases. History gives us a clear warning that individual oil wells, oil fields, and national petroleum outputs have all shown a decline in production rates when the level of reserves reaches 50 percent. Balanced against both such `common sense' and Malthusian theory are optimists, including the late economist Julian Simon, who uses energy supplies as one example when arguing that natural resources have become more available rather than more scarce. I would suggest that cellulosic biomass offers a unique opportunity for consensus between these seemingly unalterable opposing views. No longer is the debate centered on the delicate political and international issue of how best to divide the shrinking pie of world resources. Rather, application of the limitless supply of human ingenuity will be used to create a new and sustainable resource. In this regard, nature offers us the hint of a solution by demonstrating its own methods for harnessing power from the sun, nutrients in the soil and water, in support of a vast array of plant life. Following nature's elegant example, engineers and scientists have developed biotechnologies capable of breaking down nearly any form of plant, tree or grass into their constituent chemical building blocks, principally in the form of complex sugars. From this intermediate step, a wide variety of biobased industrial products including feed, fuels, chemicals, materials and power can be produced. With this capability, plants, trees, grasses and agricultural residues assume a new significance as a potential source of biobased industrial products. Significantly, cellulosic biomass is the only foreseeable sustainable source of organic fuels, chemicals and materials that find ubiquitous use in any modern economy. Consider that biobased industrial chemicals can provide functional replacements for essentially all organic chemicals currently derived from petroleum, and have clear potential for product life cycles that are much more environmentally friendly than their fossil fuel counterparts. The new cellulosic conversion technology under development will contribute towards growth of what is now a fledgling industry centered on biobased products--including chemicals, lubricants, plastics, adhesives and building materials--with a market worth an estimated $300 billion per year in its infancy. Biobased fuels such as ethanol have clear potential to be sustainable, low-cost and high performance, are compatible with both current and future transportation systems, and provide near zero net greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of bioethanol on greenhouse gas emissions is particularly significant because the transportation sector accounts for one-third of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Of the many contributing factors to possible climate change, the transportation sector is our most difficult challenge because of the ubiquitous dependence on greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels. Cellulosic ethanol, a renewable fuel derived from grasses, plants, trees and waste materials, offers a positive long-term approach to the problem of global warming that does not assume a shift from the automobile culture or increased costs for American employers and consumers. Cellulosic ethanol is a versatile, liquid fuel and consequently will be able to use much of the existing infrastructure built over the last century in support of gasoline and internal combustion engines. The compatibility of water with biomass derived products, including ethanol, is an important environmental consideration and a powerful demonstration of green chemistry. As my friend Jim Woolsey is fond of saying, ``If a second Exxon Valdez filled with ethanol ran aground off Alaska, it would produce a lot of evaporation and some drunk seals.'' By providing farmers of the world the possibility of additional commodity products, whether dedicated crops or income from collection of agricultural residues, biomass processing can lead to healthier rural economies. A major strength of the new technologies for breaking down cellulosic biomass is that almost any type of plant, tree, or agricultural waste can be used as a source of fuel. This high degree of flexibility allows farmers the possibility of a cash crop simply by collecting their agricultural wastes. Local crops that enrich the soil, prevent erosion and improve local environmental conditions can be planted and then harvested for fuel. My firm belief is that innovations in biotechnology enabling the co-production of food, fuel, chemicals and materials from the sustainable supply of cellulosic biomass, are vital to the future of agriculture. While undertaking this effort, I remain mindful that biofuels must be produced in ways that enhance overall environmental quality. Sound land-use policies must be followed to protect wildlife habitat and biological diversity concerns. But professional land-use techniques should readily accomplish this. Providing an alternative fuel that will power the internal combustion engine of the automobile will help reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil without necessitating a rebuilding of the massive infrastructure built in support of gasoline. Reliance on the unstable states of the Middle East adversely impacts American strategic security, while massive oil imports skew our balance of payments. With the need for affordable energy rising with increasing population, and the transportation sector fueled almost exclusively by fossil fuels, the Middle East will control something approaching three-quarters of the world's oil in the coming century, providing that unstable region with a disproportionate leverage over diplomatic affairs. At a time when the United States confronts an ill-defined and confused drama of events on the international stage, including an increasingly assertive China, and nuclear and missile technology proliferation to North Korea, it seems clear we should dedicate a relatively small amount of money toward research that could lead to a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy. Or as presented by a distinguished panel of scientists and industrial experts in a recent PCAST report, ``. . . the security of the United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of the next century by the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to the world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems.'' The report succinctly concludes, ``It is striking that the Federal government spends about twenty times more R&D money on the latter problem than on the former.'' Before we are able to reap the significant benefits offered by biobased industrial products, the cost of the new conversion technology must be significantly reduced. Research and development is the only systematic means for creating the innovations and technical improvements that will lower the costs of biomass processing. Given the relatively short-term horizon characteristic of private sector investments, and because many benefits of biomass processing are in the public interest, industry is ill-equipped to fund the necessary fundamental research that will result in cost effective technologies for biomass conversion. Research activities carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy and other Federal agencies are a principal reason for much of the progress witnessed in biomass processing and underscore the future promise if new technology is developed. Nonetheless, coordination among the Federal agencies is disjointed and the research tends to be driven by institutional missions rather than by an overarching strategy to develop cost-effective technologies for biomass conversion. The National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act is designed to overcome these shortcomings and raise the level of the Federal commitment to biotechnologies that are already demonstrating potential as powerful new alternatives to the traditional practices of the past. In this effort, I am asking for the support of President Clinton and Vice President Gore who have indicated their commitment to the development of sustainable resources. On this issue we can develop a consensus for undertaking research that will improve our national security and balance of payments, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen rural economies in America and around the world. Working together we can promote the type of innovation-focused research essential for improvements in the utilization of America's biomass resource. It is my firm belief that future Americans will enjoy a rich return on our investment in the promise of a green revolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act, with the goal of advancing biotechnologies likely to offer outstanding benefits in terms of strategic security, reduction of greenhouse gases and healthier rural economies. At the heart of the National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act is a novel research Initiative, jointly administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, that authorizes research for the purpose of overcoming technical barriers to low cost biomass conversion and gives priority funding to consortia composed of technical experts from academia, national laboratories, Federal research agencies and industry. By enhancing creative and imaginative approaches toward biomass processing, the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Research Initiative will serve to develop the next generation of advanced technologies making possible low cost biobased industrial products. Innovative in both purpose and structure, the Initiative will promote integrated research partnerships as the best means of overcoming technical challenges that span multiple academic disciplines while also leveraging scarce Federal discretionary spending. 49 million dollars per annum is proposed for the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Research Initiative; funding is authorized for six years, through 2005. Given the potential benefits in improved national security, rural development and greenhouse gas reductions, this expenditure represents an investment in America's future and is in line with recommendations from a report of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The legislation will also coordinate and focus Federal research in cellulosic biomass processing through creation of the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Board consisting of senior representatives from the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Co-chaired by designees of the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy, the Board shall coordinate research, development and demonstration activities relating to biobased industrial products between the Departments of Energy and Agriculture which are the two principal agencies for biotechnology research on fuels, chemicals and power. The Board will also serve to coordinate research activities across the many Federal agencies that are involved in research, regulation and policy formulation of fuels, commodity chemicals and power. To advise the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy on the technical focus and direction of the request for proposals issued under the research Initiative, a Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Technical Advisory Committee is established. Modeled on the National Defense Sciences Board, the Advisory Committee consists of experts from academia, prominent engineers and scientists, representatives from commodity trade organizations and environmental or conservation groups. As an independent panel of technical experts, the Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Technical Advisory Committee will serve an important role in the strategic planning and oversight of research carried out under the Initiative. The case for promoting technology that will supply fuels, notably ethanol, chemicals and power from cellulosic biomass can be made independently of whether the world will continue to enjoy cheap oil. However, a wealth of scientific data indicates both that the world's supply of conventional oil is nearly half exhausted and that with each passing year, the demand for petroleum-derived energy increases. History gives us a clear warning that individual oil wells, oil fields, and national petroleum outputs have all shown a decline in production rates when the level of reserves reaches 50 percent. Balanced against both such `common sense' and Malthusian theory are optimists, including the late economist Julian Simon, who uses energy supplies as one example when arguing that natural resources have become more available rather than more scarce. I would suggest that cellulosic biomass offers a unique opportunity for consensus between these seemingly unalterable opposing views. No longer is the debate centered on the delicate political and international issue of how best to divide the shrinking pie of world resources. Rather, application of the limitless supply of human ingenuity will be used to create a new and sustainable resource. In this regard, nature offers us the hint of a solution by demonstrating its own methods for harnessing power from the sun, nutrients in the soil and water, in support of a vast array of plant life. Following nature's elegant example, engineers and scientists have developed biotechnologies capable of breaking down nearly any form of plant, tree or grass into their constituent chemical building blocks, principally in the form of complex sugars. From this intermediate step, a wide variety of biobased industrial products including feed, fuels, chemicals, materials and power can be produced. With this capability, plants, trees, grasses and agricultural residues assume a new significance as a potential source of biobased industrial products. Significantly, cellulosic biomass is the only foreseeable sustainable source of organic fuels, chemicals and materials that find ubiquitous use in any modern economy. Consider that biobased industrial chemicals can provide functional replacements for essentially all organic chemicals currently derived from petroleum, and have clear potential for product life cycles that are much more environmentally friendly than their fossil fuel counterparts. The new cellulosic conversion technology under development will contribute towards growth of what is now a fledgling industry centered on biobased products--including chemicals, lubricants, plastics, adhesives and building materials--with a market worth an estimated $300 billion per year in its infancy. Biobased fuels such as ethanol have clear potential to be sustainable, low-cost and high performance, are compatible with both current and future transportation systems, and provide near zero net greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of bioethanol on greenhouse gas emissions is particularly significant because the transportation sector accounts for one-third of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Of the many contributing factors to possible climate change, the transportation sector is our most difficult challenge because of the ubiquitous dependence on greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels. Cellulosic ethanol, a renewable fuel derived from grasses, plants, trees and waste materials, offers a positive long-term approach to the problem of global warming that does not assume a shift from the automobile culture or increased costs for American employers and consumers. Cellulosic ethanol is a versatile, liquid fuel and consequently will be able to use much of the existing infrastructure built over the last century in support of gasoline and internal combustion engines. The compatibility of water with biomass derived products, including ethanol, is an important environmental consideration and a powerful demonstration of green chemistry. As my friend Jim Woolsey is fond of saying, ``If a second Exxon Valdez filled with ethanol ran aground off Alaska, it would produce a lot of evaporation and some drunk seals.'' By providing farmers of the world the possibility of additional commodity products, whether dedicated crops or income from collection of agricultural residues, biomass processing can lead to healthier rural economies. A major strength of the new technologies for breaking down cellulosic biomass is that almost any type of plant, tree, or agricultural waste can be used as a source of fuel. This high degree of flexibility allows farmers the possibility of a cash crop simply by collecting their agricultural wastes. Local crops that enrich the soil, prevent erosion and improve local environmental conditions can be planted and then harvested for fuel. My firm belief is that innovations in biotechnology enabling the co-production of food, fuel, chemicals and materials from the sustainable supply of cellulosic biomass, are vital to the future of agriculture. While undertaking this effort, I remain mindful that biofuels must be produced in ways that enhance overall environmental quality. Sound land-use policies must be followed to protect wildlife habitat and biological diversity concerns. But professional land-use techniques should readily accomplish this. Providing an alternative fuel that will power the internal combustion engine of the automobile will help reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil without necessitating a rebuilding of the massive infrastructure built in support of gasoline. Reliance on the unstable states of the Middle East adversely impacts American strategic security, while massive oil imports skew our balance of payments. With the need for affordable energy rising with increasing population, and the transportation sector fueled almost exclusively by fossil fuels, the Middle East will control something approaching three-quarters of the world's oil in the coming century, providing that unstable region with a disproportionate leverage over diplomatic affairs. At a time when the United States confronts an ill-defined and confused drama of events on the international stage, including an increasingly assertive China, and nuclear and missile technology proliferation to North Korea, it seems clear we should dedicate a relatively small amount of money toward research that could lead to a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy. Or as presented by a distinguished panel of scientists and industrial experts in a recent PCAST report, ``. . . the security of the United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of the next century by the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to the world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems.'' The report succinctly concludes, ``It is striking that the Federal government spends about twenty times more R&D money on the latter problem than on the former.'' Before we are able to reap the significant benefits offered by biobased industrial products, the cost of the new conversion technology must be significantly reduced. Research and development is the only systematic means for creating the innovations and technical improvements that will lower the costs of biomass processing. Given the relatively short-term horizon characteristic of private sector investments, and because many benefits of biomass processing are in the public interest, industry is ill-equipped to fund the necessary fundamental research that will result in cost effective technologies for biomass conversion. Research activities carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy and other Federal agencies are a principal reason for much of the progress witnessed in biomass processing and underscore the future promise if new technology is developed. Nonetheless, coordination among the Federal agencies is disjointed and the research tends to be driven by institutional missions rather than by an overarching strategy to develop cost-effective technologies for biomass conversion. The National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act is designed to overcome these shortcomings and raise the level of the Federal commitment to biotechnologies that are already demonstrating potential as powerful new alternatives to the traditional practices of the past. In this effort, I am asking for the support of President Clinton and Vice President Gore who have indicated their commitment to the development of sustainable resources. On this issue we can develop a consensus for undertaking research that will improve our national security and balance of payments, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen rural economies in America and around the world. Working together we can promote the type of innovation-focused research essential for improvements in the utilization of America's biomass resource. It is my firm belief that future Americans will enjoy a rich return on our investment in the promise of a green revolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on April 21, 1999, in SR-328A at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the USDA Office of the Inspector General's report on crop insurance reform.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Hoosier and American veterans of Exercise Tiger. Exercise Tiger began as a top secret naval ``dress rehearsal'' for the impending Allied Invasion of Normandy. In the early morning of April 28, 1944, German warships attacked eight American tank landing ships (LST's) without warning during the exercise in the English Channel. Two American LST's were sunk, and a third was crippled. Of the 4,000-man force, 749 were lost in this short battle. On April 23, Exercise Tiger veterans will be honored at Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis, Indiana in commemoration of the 55th anniversary of the engagement. Tom Glynn, a retired US Navy veteran of Exercise Tiger, will lay a wreath at the grave of Frederick C. Carr, US Navy, LST-531, who died in the operation at Slapton Sands. The toll of a US Navy ship's bell will bring the ceremony to a close, ringing once for each of the eight ships involved in Exercise Tiger. Because of the sensitive nature of the mission, veterans of Exercise Tiger were not properly recognized after the operation. Today's ceremony in Indianapolis is the first tribute in Indiana to honor the memory of fallen heroes of the battle. I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring these courageous servicemen for their valiant service to the United States of America.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, later this week NATO will honor its 50th anniversary at a Summit here in Washington, D.C. The leaders of the 19 NATO member nations and the heads of state of many Partnership- for-Peace participants will participate in meetings to discuss the successes of the NATO Alliance and its future in the post-Cold War world. The more distant we become from the days of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, the clearer it becomes that we have entered a new era. But dangers still abound in post-Cold War Europe. The ongoing conflict in Kosovo is a stark reminder that threats to the security of NATO's members still exist. The revolutions of 1989 not only led to the collapse of communism but also to the end of the peace orders established after two world wars. What is at stake today is order and stability in Europe as a whole. And that is why American interests are involved. Mr. President, NATO cannot by itself solve all of Europe's problems. But without a stable security framework, we run the risk that reform and democracy in Eastern Europe will not persist but will instead be undercut by destructive forces of nationalism and insecurity. The failure of democracy in the East could not help but have profound consequences for democracy in the continent's western half as well. The resolution that I submit today on behalf of Senators Roth, Lott, Lieberman, DeWine, Voinovich, and Hagel sets forth three goals for the United States to achieve in discussions over the future of the NATO Alliance: (1) the enforcement of Article 10 of the Washington Treaty to remain open to the accession of additional members and a formal review of all applications for memberships; (2) expansion of the primary focus beyond threats from the east; and (3) the upgrading of our allies' ability to project power and to operate ``out of area.'' NATO's ``open door'' policy toward new members established by Article 10 of the Washington Treaty, has given countries of Central and Eastern Europe the incentive to accelerate reforms, to peacefully settle disputes with neighbors, and to increase regional cooperation. Hopes of future membership in NATO has been a tremendous driving force of democratization and peace in Eastern and Central Europe including former Warsaw Pact nations. To retract the ``open-door'' policy, as some have suggested, would risk undermining the tremendous gains that have been made across the region. The result of a ``closed-door'' policy would be the creation of new dividing lines across Europe. Those nations outside might become disillusioned and insecure and thus inclined to adopt the competitive and destabilizing security policies of Europe's past. NATO's decision to enlarge in stages recognizes that not all new democracies and applicants in Europe are equally ready or willing to be security allies. Some states may never be ready. The selection of future NATO members should depend on: (1) a determination by NATO members of their strategic interests; (2) NATO's perception of threats to security and stability; and (3) actions taken by prospective members to complete their democratic transitions and to harmonize their policies with NATO's political aims and security policies. To reinforce the benefits of Article X, I believe a comprehensive review of the qualifications of the nine current applicant countries should be conducted under the guidelines laid out in the 1995 NATO Study on Enlargement. A review of this type would further demonstrate that NATO is actively considering a continuation of the enlargement process. Some believe that the Alliance is not interested in further enlargement; a formal review of the type I am suggesting would go far in reassuring NATO and non-NATO states of the Alliance's plans. Furthermore, a review would provide NATO aspirants with additional incentive to continue democratic, economic and military reforms. This is in the national security interests of the United States and NATO and should be encouraged. These actions would also serve to clarify the security expectations of non-NATO members. It would make clear that it is the intention of the United States that NATO remain a serious defensive military alliance and not slip into a loose collective security society. It would suggest that enlargement will be a careful, deliberate process, with consideration of all security interests. Finally, it would draw again on the principle of reciprocity, both to encourage prospective members to align themselves with NATO's values and policies and to signal that threats levied against would-be members will be counterproductive. A second goal enunciated in this resolution concerns the need to broaden NATO's focus. For nearly 50 years, NATO was oriented and organized to defend and respond to an attack from the East. An invasion by Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces was the primary threat facing the Alliance. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, new threats have replaced the nightmare of Soviet armored divisions crashing through the Fulda Gap. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, terrorism, ethnic strife, and other potentially destabilizing elements now threaten the Alliance. It is a basic American interest that the Alliance not only enlarge to help stabilize Eastern Europe but that enlargement be part and parcel of a broader transformation that turns Europe into an increasingly effective strategic partner of the United States in and beyond the continent. I believe this includes an improvement in the ability for NATO to operate outside the borders of its members. This is not a new mission. The potential for these types of endeavors has been present since NATO's inception. The true core of NATO has always been collective defense, but Article 4 of the Washington Treaty suggests that NATO will consult and can act if the security of any of the Parties is threatened. This interpretation was reinforced by John Foster Dulles in May 1949 during Senate consideration of the Washington Treaty. Secretary of State Dulles testified that the occasions for consultation under Article 4 are not merely attacks in the Atlantic area dealt with by Article 5, but threats anywhere to any of the parties since the parties have interests and possessions throughout the world. So we are not talking about new NATO responsibilities; these types of actions were considered by the members of the Alliance and are supported by language in the treaty ratified by the Senate in 1949. It is important to remember that participation in non-Article 5 missions is not obligatory and each NATO member is free to make an independent decision regarding participation in those missions. The United States and other NATO members are able to decide on the basis of their interests and an independent assessment of the situation whether to participate. This is as it should be. A third goal set forth in this resolution deals with NATO members' capabilities. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact have altered the strategic and military landscape in which NATO forces will operate in the future. The potential for massive tank battles over the plains of Central Europe has been reduced. Instead military strategists believe the conflicts of the 21st century will require NATO members to rapidly deploy forces over long distances, sustain operations for extended periods of time and operate jointly with the United States in high intensity conflicts. NATO developed a truly credible capability to defend itself from threats emanating from Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. But our allies have not moved far enough or fast enough to improve their capabilities to defend against newly emerging threats. In many cases these threats cannot be readily distinguished as either Article 5 or Article 4. Today NATO faces threats to its southern borders and forces. For example, Turkey's borders are directly threatened by rogue states to its south. NATO has a credible plan to reinforce Turkey in the event of hostilities. Unfortunately, this plan relies heavily on U.S. forces. If the U.S. were unable to provide the military apparatus necessary to implement this plan because of its involvement in operations elsewhere, the reinforcement blueprint would be in jeopardy. European forces lack serious power projection capabilities for demanding Article 5 missions, in addition to the potential for meeting Article 4 contingencies. We must maintain and improve NATO's military force capability to respond to all conceivable missions. Our goal must be to enlarge NATO by enhancing NATO's strategic strength and military effectiveness. The need for improved European power projection capability becomes self- evident when one considers that the U.S. currently contributes only about 20% of NATO's total conventional forces, but provides about 80% of NATO's usable military capability for power projection missions. We must reconfigure NATO to deal with the threats of the 21st century by requiring improved allied power projection forces for operating in a seamless web of situations including within NATO's enlarging borders, inside Europe including on its periphery, and outside Europe when the Alliance's vital interests are at stake. The U.S. Government must demand rough trans-Atlantic parity in power projection capabilities and we must not settle for less. NATO is the only institution capable of building these necessary force structures. NATO's 50th Anniversary provides an opportunity for the Administration to press our European allies on these issues and call for a more equitable burden-sharing arrangement in power projection capabilities. Mr. President, it is clear that the Summit cannot proceed with the agenda that was envisioned prior to the commencement of military operations in Kosovo. However, it does provide the United States with an opportunity to raise the key issues that will determine the ability of NATO to serve as the premiere U.S. and European security architecture for the 21st century. That is the primary reason we have set forth these major Alliance goals in our resolution. Some of my colleagues have suggested that, because of Kosovo, we should delay or postpone these important discussions. I do not agree. The Alliance must revise NATO's Strategic Concept and military structure to make NATO both more politically and militarily relevant to post-Cold War security issues. This is an outstanding opportunity to ensure that NATO continues to meet the security needs of all of its members states, including the U.S. A pause or delay will simply postpone necessary revisions to the current Strategic Concept, a concept that was adopted in 1990 while the Soviet Union was still in existence. We must move ahead. The Alliance must not allow Serbian President Milosevic to derail NATO's important work. It is my hope that the Administration will be able to work with our Allies to produce a Strategic Concept able to meet the security needs of the U.S. and our allies in the 21st century. That should be our primary objective of the Summit; that is the primary objective of this Resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Indiana as a cosponsor of this Senate resolution commending the Purdue University women's basketball team on winning the 1999 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball championship. The Lady Boilermakers this year have made Indiana history in becoming the first women's sport to bring home a national championship title for Purdue University. They are also the first women's basketball team in the Big Ten Athletic Conference to win the NCAA title. This resolution is a fitting tribute and a deserving honor for Coach Carolyn Peck and the team members who persevered throughout the long season and the playoffs to win the national title. Their commitment and dedication to this tremendous effort is demonstrated by their winning record of 34 games--including a string of 32 consecutive victories. Throughout this storied season, the Lady Boilers' skill and dedication was matched only by the grace and dignity with which they carried themselves as a team en route to the national title. For departing seniors Ukari Figgs and Stephanie White-McCarty, this victory is truly special as they complete their studies at Purdue and look toward the future. Winning the NCAA title is an historic and special occasion--placing this team among a select company of national champions. Their triumph will be remembered at Purdue and throughout our State for years to come. The dedication and sportsmanship demonstrated throughout the season by the Lady Boilers reaffirm our strong basketball tradition in Indiana. The team's competitive spirit and commitment to excellence make them deserving recipients of the accolades of the nation and the honor of this special Senate resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Sanctions Policy Reform Act of 1999,'' a bill that would establish a more deliberative, commonsense approach to U.S. sanctions policy. I am joined by nearly thirty colleagues from both sides of the aisle. A companion bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 24, 1999. We introduced a similar sanctions reform bill in the 105th Congress and gained thirty-nine co-sponsors in the Senate. Our interest in reforming U.S. economic sanctions policy stems from a number of compelling and disturbing findings. The net effect of our self-imposed economic sanctions is that they deny access to U.S. markets abroad, reduce our trade balance, contribute to job loss, complicate our foreign policy and antagonize friends and allies. Unilateral economic sanctions are truly a blunt instrument of foreign policy. Unilateral economic sanctions have become a policy of first use, rather than last resort, when pursuing a foreign policy objective. Sanctions are tempting alternatives to careful diplomatic negotiations and to the use of force to accomplish foreign policy goals. Unilateral economic sanctions have become more frequent in recent years and have been used against more countries, both friends and adversaries, for an increasing variety of actions which we find offensive. Unilateral economic sanctions can give a competitive edge to foreign companies by precluding U.S. companies from exporting. Over time, foreign competitors will establish trade connections with a U.S. sanctioned country, solidify their trade ties and make it difficult for U.S. companies to re-enter those markets. This is costly to the U.S. economy, to American exports, to American jobs and to our overall foreign policy. There have been a large number of studies on unilateral economic sanctions and they provide startling estimates of the sanctions' costs. The report of the President's Export Council, for example, cited 75 countries representing more than half of the world's population that have been subject to or threatened by U.S. unilateral economic sanctions. In another study, the Institute for International Economics concluded that, in 1995, alone, economic sanctions cost U.S. exports between $15-19 billion, and eliminated upwards to 200,000 U.S. jobs, many in high wage export sector. More recently, the administration revealed the results of its internal inventory of U.S. sanctions and found that there are now more than 280 identifiable sanctions provisions that are either in force or in law. Unilateral economic sanctions rarely succeed in accomplishing their stated foreign policy objectives. Unilateral economic sanctions sometimes do more damage to our interests than to those against whom they are aimed. For this reason alone, we should re-think the way in which we manage our sanctions policy. Mr. President, a cardinal principle of foreign policy is that when we act internationally, our actions should do less harm to ourselves than to others. Unilateral economic sanctions, unfortunately, often fail this crucial test of public policy. In fact, Mr President, unilateral economic sanctions often impose long-term adverse effects on the U.S. economy. Once foreign competitors establish a presence in international markets that are abandoned by the United States, the potential losses can magnify. Over time, the cumulative effect of sanctions will not only include the loss of commercial contracts, but also the loss of confidence in American suppliers and in the United States as a reliable business partner. The frequent resort to unilateral economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy goals, however meritorious these goals may be, runs the risk of weakening our export performance which has contributed so greatly to our economic prosperity. Mr. President, unilateral economic sanctions give the illusion of action by substituting for more decisive action or by serving as a palliative for those who demand that some action be taken--any action-- by the United States against a country with whom we have a disagreement. Yet, the evidence is powerful that they rarely attain the foreign policy goals they are intended to achieve. The bill we are introducing today includes a number of changes from last year's bill which we believe will strengthen the cause of sanctions reform. These new provisions include language that would provide the President more flexibility in meeting procedural requirements he would otherwise have to meet when considering new unilateral economic sanctions. The bill includes a permanent waiver authority on the Nuclear Prevention Proliferation Act of 1994, the so- called Glenn Amendment, which mandates the automatic imposition of sanctions on countries which detonate a nuclear device for weapons development. We also included an additional procedural ``speed bump'' to improve the deliberative process in the Congress. Mr. President, our legislation is prospective. With only one exception, our bill does not affect existing U.S. sanctions. The only provision in our bill which reaches back to current unilateral economic sanctions gives the President permanent authority to waive the sanctions in the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, the Glenn Amendment. Our bill applies only to unilateral sanctions and to those sanctions intended to achieve foreign policy or national security objectives. It would exclude, by definition, U.S. trade laws that have well-established procedures and precedents. The bill does not address the complex issue of state and local sanctions designed to achieve foreign policy goals. Our proposed legislation does not prohibit unilateral economic sanctions or prevent a vote in the Congress on any proposed new sanction. There are situations where other foreign policy options have been exhausted and where the actions of other countries are so outrageous or so threatending to the United States and national interests that our response, short of the use of force, must be firm and unambiguous. In such instances, economic sanctions may be an appropriate instrument of American foreign policy. Our legislation seeks to establish clear guidelines and informational requirements to help us improve our deliberations and to understand better the consequences of our actions before we implement new economic sanctions. We should know before voting or imposing any new sanctions what the costs and gains to the United States and our friends and allies are likely to be. There should be an analysis of the impact of any new sanctions on our reputation as a reliable supplier, the other policy options that have been explored, and whether the proposed sanctions are likely to contribute to the foreign policy objectives sought in the legislation. Comparable requirements are also mandated in the bill for those new sanctions contemplated by the President under his authorities. If the Congress and the President decide to implement new sanctions, our bill requires periodic evaluations from the President detailing the degree to which the sanctions have accomplished U.S. goals, the impact they are having on our economic, political and humanitarian interests, and their effects on other foreign policy goals and interests. The bill provides for more active and timely consultations between Congress and the President. It provides Presidential authority to permit the President to waive the procedural requirements he must otherwise meet if he exercises his current authorities to impose a new sanction. The waiver authority can be exercised if the President determines that it is in the national interests to do so. Our bill includes a sunset provision which means that any new unilateral economic sanction must expire after 2 years duration unless the Congress or the President acts to re-authorize them. Too often sanctions have lingered on the books long after anyone remembers and long after they are having any effect. It includes language on contract sanctity to help ensure that the United States is a reliable supplier, but it also includes appropriate exceptions to protect against contracts that might otherwise be illegal or contrary to U.S. interests. Our bill gives special attention to American agriculture because American farmers and ranchers face a disproportionate burden from U.S. economic sanctions. Agricultural commodities are our most vulnerable exports because they are the most easily replaced by other exporters. American exporters lose access to some fourteen percent of the world rice market, some ten percent of the world wheat market and some five percent of the world corn market due to our sanctions. Because of this, we included discretionary authority in the bill to provide for compensatory agricultural assistance if agricultural markets are severely disrupted by the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions. No new appropriations would be required for this authority. The bill opposes the use of food and medicines as a tool of foreign policy, except in the most severe circumstances, and urges that economic sanctions be targeted as narrowly as possible on the targeted country in order to minimize harm to innocent people and humanitarian activities. Let me reiterate that nothing in this bill prohibits new unilateral economic sanctions or prevents a vote in the Congress on proposed new sanctions. The steps detailed in this bill provide for better policy procedures and more informed analysis so that proposed new sanctions are preceded by a more deliberative process by which the President and the Congress can make reasoned and balanced choices affecting the totality of American values and interests. Mr. President, I feel strongly about this bill and this issue. It goes to the heart of the manner by which we conduct our commercial relations abroad and the way we manage our overall foreign policy. We need to do a better job on both. This legislation is designed to do just that. I hope my colleagues will join me and the other original co-sponsors by taking a close look at this legislation and the reforms that we are attempting to accomplish. I welcome their support and believe that if we deal with the unilateral economic sanctions issue in a careful and systematic manner, we can make a significant positive contribution to the conduct of American foreign policy and to our national interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be included in the Record, along with a section-by-section description of the bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will permit local school officials the opportunity to waive the cost requirements of foreign students studying in our public high schools in the United States on F-1 visas. The law now mandates that all foreign students who are not in a government-funded exchange program pay or reimburse the local school district the cost of their education. In those public school districts flooded with foreign students who pay no taxes, this requirement makes good sense. However, in those school districts which enroll a small number of foreign students or experience little or no burden, there may be no desire for tuition reimbursement. The decision to enroll and to require cost reimbursement should be made at the local level. Current law, however, does not permit this local discretion. The bill I am introducing today will allow local school districts the chance to waive the requirement that foreign students pay for the cost of their education. The decision to waive or not waive this requirement should be made at the grassroots level where the problem, if any, exist, not in Washington. My bill seeks to preserve this principle. It would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Foreign exchange students bring knowledge, cultural exposure and understanding to American students, schools and communities. I have been a proponent of cultural and educational exchanges and have supported most international exchange programs over the years--both those which bring foreign visitors here and those which send American students, scholars and practitioners abroad. Most recently, my office participated in the Congress-Bundestag program. An intern from Germany worked in my office for several weeks and learned about how a Senate office functions. I remain committed to these exchange programs. They bring enormous benefits to our country as well as to the individuals. In 1996, I supported the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This law states that as of November 30, 1996, IIRIRA prohibits any alien from receiving an F-1 student visa to attend a public elementary school, grades K-8, or a publicly-funded adult education program unless they pay the unsubsidized, per capita cost of their education in advance. My bill would not change current law relating to elementary schools or adult education. It would not pertain to students on formal, government-funded international exchanges such as those managed by the State Department, the USIA and many other federal government agencies. It would simply allow high school officials to waive the cost of the education of high school-level foreign students if that was their own choice. Several municipalities have ``Sister City'' arrangements between American cities and cities in foreign countries. One valuable component of these arrangements is an exchange program for high school students enabling American youth to spend a year in a foreign high school while students from abroad spend a year in a high school here. No tuition is generally exchanged under the sister city agreement, but current U.S. law states that visitors to our country must pay the unsubsidized cost of their education, even though American students attending schools abroad are exempted from the cost requirement. Along the Alaska-Yukon, Alaska-British Columbia and U.S.-Mexican borders there are schools serving very remote communities on both sides of the border. After enactment of the 1996 law, Canadian or Mexican students were no longer eligible to enter the United States to attend local public schools even though governments and the local school districts agreed to enroll the students. Many school districts choose to enroll one or two exchange students a year. Reciprocal exchange agreements are beneficial and host families enjoy these students in their homes. American exchange students attending schools in Germany, for example, are not subjected to the same tuition requirements for their schooling, yet they gain an understanding of German history and culture and benefit from their travels. Currently, U.S. law requires foreign students to pay their tuition before they arrive in the United States. The extra paper work, the up-front costs and the extra burden these requirements place on foreign students tend to undermine the purpose of cultural exchanges. I remain mindful to past abuses of F-1 visas and am sympathetic to the burden that large enrollments of foreign students place on American public schools. My purpose in introducing this bill today is not to weaken the law as it currently reads, but to provide an outlet for our schools to have an opportunity for enrolling international exchange students. Last year, I was successful in getting similar legislation passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. This bill has the support of many Senators, of the Department of Education, Department of State and the USIA as well as most U.S. non-governmental organizations interested in immigration, student exchanges, public education. It is my hope that the Senate will once again pass this bill. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be included in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will permit local school officials the opportunity to waive the cost requirements of foreign students studying in our public high schools in the United States on F-1 visas. The law now mandates that all foreign students who are not in a government-funded exchange program pay or reimburse the local school district the cost of their education. In those public school districts flooded with foreign students who pay no taxes, this requirement makes good sense. However, in those school districts which enroll a small number of foreign students or experience little or no burden, there may be no desire for tuition reimbursement. The decision to enroll and to require cost reimbursement should be made at the local level. Current law, however, does not permit this local discretion. The bill I am introducing today will allow local school districts the chance to waive the requirement that foreign students pay for the cost of their education. The decision to waive or not waive this requirement should be made at the grassroots level where the problem, if any, exist, not in Washington. My bill seeks to preserve this principle. It would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Foreign exchange students bring knowledge, cultural exposure and understanding to American students, schools and communities. I have been a proponent of cultural and educational exchanges and have supported most international exchange programs over the years--both those which bring foreign visitors here and those which send American students, scholars and practitioners abroad. Most recently, my office participated in the Congress-Bundestag program. An intern from Germany worked in my office for several weeks and learned about how a Senate office functions. I remain committed to these exchange programs. They bring enormous benefits to our country as well as to the individuals. In 1996, I supported the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This law states that as of November 30, 1996, IIRIRA prohibits any alien from receiving an F-1 student visa to attend a public elementary school, grades K-8, or a publicly-funded adult education program unless they pay the unsubsidized, per capita cost of their education in advance. My bill would not change current law relating to elementary schools or adult education. It would not pertain to students on formal, government-funded international exchanges such as those managed by the State Department, the USIA and many other federal government agencies. It would simply allow high school officials to waive the cost of the education of high school-level foreign students if that was their own choice. Several municipalities have ``Sister City'' arrangements between American cities and cities in foreign countries. One valuable component of these arrangements is an exchange program for high school students enabling American youth to spend a year in a foreign high school while students from abroad spend a year in a high school here. No tuition is generally exchanged under the sister city agreement, but current U.S. law states that visitors to our country must pay the unsubsidized cost of their education, even though American students attending schools abroad are exempted from the cost requirement. Along the Alaska-Yukon, Alaska-British Columbia and U.S.-Mexican borders there are schools serving very remote communities on both sides of the border. After enactment of the 1996 law, Canadian or Mexican students were no longer eligible to enter the United States to attend local public schools even though governments and the local school districts agreed to enroll the students. Many school districts choose to enroll one or two exchange students a year. Reciprocal exchange agreements are beneficial and host families enjoy these students in their homes. American exchange students attending schools in Germany, for example, are not subjected to the same tuition requirements for their schooling, yet they gain an understanding of German history and culture and benefit from their travels. Currently, U.S. law requires foreign students to pay their tuition before they arrive in the United States. The extra paper work, the up-front costs and the extra burden these requirements place on foreign students tend to undermine the purpose of cultural exchanges. I remain mindful to past abuses of F-1 visas and am sympathetic to the burden that large enrollments of foreign students place on American public schools. My purpose in introducing this bill today is not to weaken the law as it currently reads, but to provide an outlet for our schools to have an opportunity for enrolling international exchange students. Last year, I was successful in getting similar legislation passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. This bill has the support of many Senators, of the Department of Education, Department of State and the USIA as well as most U.S. non-governmental organizations interested in immigration, student exchanges, public education. It is my hope that the Senate will once again pass this bill. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be included in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of young Indiana students who have shown great educative achievement. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the winners of the 1998-99 Eighth Grade Youth Essay Contest which I sponsored in association with the Indiana Farm Bureau and Bank One of Indiana. These students have displayed strong writing abilities and have proven themselves to be outstanding young Hoosier scholars. I submit their names for the Congressional Record because they demonstrate the capabilities of today's students and are fine representatives of our Nation. This year, Hoosier students wrote on the theme, ``Hoosier Farmers-- Global Impact.'' Considering the importance of our expanding global market-place, students were asked to select a country or region of the world that buys products from Hoosier farmers and then creatively describe the value of this relationship to both trading partners. I would like to submit for the Record the winning essays of Wyatt James Roth of Pulaski County and Jennifer Tarr of Orange County. As state winners of the Youth Essay Contest, these two outstanding students are being recognized on Friday, March 19, 1999 during a visit to our Nation's Capitol. The essays are as follows: Corn's Ticket to Thailand (By Jennifer Tarr, Orange County) This little kernel of Indiana's corn is going places. It will travel halfway around the world to the Southeast Asian country of Thailand. Come along with me . . .

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). I'm pleased to be joined by Senators McCain, Gramm, Hagel, DeWine and Grams as original cosponsors. Our bill is designed to provide a broad U.S. policy framework towards the nearly fifty countries in sub-Sahara Africa. Specifically, the bill seeks to develop active partnerships with African countries through a set of trade and investment initiatives and incentives in exchange for a commitment from those countries to make the transition to market economies. For decades U.S. policy towards Africa was based largely on a series of bilateral aid relationships. Our involvement in Africa was influenced by strategic considerations inherent in the cold war. Our assistance programs targeted humanitarian crises and natural disasters and they helped nurture a variety of health, nutritional, educational and agricultural programs. As important as these programs have been, they have not promoted much economic development, fostered much self- reliance or promoted political stability for the vast majority of the people of sub-Sahara Africa. Nor have they particularly benefitted the American economy. For these reasons, it is long past due that the United States re-evaluate this policy. That is the purpose of our bill. Last year, a similar bill was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives but did not reach the floor of the Senate. The bill has been introduced last month in the House and the House committees have been active. Already, the bill is scheduled to be reported by both the Ways and Means and International Relations Committees very soon. I understand that it is scheduled for a floor vote in the House in the next several weeks. The Administration supports this legislation because it mirrors its own initiatives on Africa. Indeed, President Clinton cited the initiative and the bill in his last two State of the Union addresses before the Congress. Virtually all African Ambassadors have endorsed this bill and are committed to working to pass and enact it this year. Our bill enjoys support within the American business community and among many non-governmental organizations involved in Africa. Mr. President, the AGOA is intended to promote greater economic self- reliance in Africa through enhanced private sector activity and trade incentives for those countries meeting eligibility requirements and wishing to participate. The bill authorizes the President to grant duty-free treatment to certain products currently excluded from the GSP program, subject to the sensitivity analysis of the International Trade Commission. It extends the GSP program for Africa for 10 years, a provision which is important for long-term business planning. The bill also would increase access to U.S. markets for African textiles and other products. It would remove U.S. quotas on African textile imports which now amount to less than one percent of our worldwide textile imports. The bill includes unusually strong transshipment language that is the toughest ever proposed. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated last year that reducing tariffs on textiles from Africa would have a negligible effect on our economy but would give a high boost to Africa's fledgling manufacturing base. The jobs and foreign exchange earnings that would be gained in Africa under this initiative will enable Africans to purchase more products from the United States. In my judgement, the AGOA is a modest bill which, if adopted, could have immodest results in Africa. It takes a long-term view and provides a policy road map for achieving economic growth and opportunity. It will take some time for the initiatives embedded in this legislation to have a measurable impact on economic growth in Africa. Nonetheless, we need to look ahead over the next decades and to assist wherever possible in the development of those areas that have not been successfully or fully integrated into the world economy. Much of Africa falls into this category. My bill is intended to help facilitate that transition. Strategic planning now will help create a better, more productive and prosperous future. Mr. President, our bill includes a number of other attractive provisions. It includes two new private sector financed funds--an equity fund and an infrastructure fund both of which would be backed by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). If successful, these funds will lead to improvements in such areas as African roads, telecommunications and power plants each of which can accelerate economic activity in Africa. It includes provisions for enhanced visibility for Africa in our international deliberations on trade and finance and increased technical assistance for economic management. It establishes a Forum to facilitate high level discussions on trade and investment policies between the U.S. and Africa. Most importantly, our bill signals the start of a new era in U.S.- African relations based less on bilateral aid ties and more business relationships, less on paternalism and more on partnerships, and one that builds upon the long term prospects of African societies rather than on short-term, reactive policies. Many African societies have been undergoing impressive political and economic transformations. Africa's economic potential is substantial. There are more than 600 million people in sub-Sahara Africa, but Africa's share of foreign annual direct investment commands less than two percent of global direct investment flows. Much of that capital comes from Europe which has an established market and investment presence in Africa. Nonetheless, several African countries enjoy sustained economic growth at or above 6%, despite the strains in the global economy that began in Southeast Asia and spread to other parts of the world. Indeed, U.S. Trade with sub-Sahara Africa exceeds our trade with all the states of the former Soviet Union combined and the potential for expansion will grow as these economies expand and mature. The enhanced trade and private investment benefits in the bill will be available to all African societies but especially to those countries which undertake sustained economic reform, maintain acceptable human rights practices and make progress towards good governance. These standards are similar to those applied in other parts of the world. Indeed, without these standards the private sector would be unlikely to invest in Africa. The United States can play a significant role in helping promote Africa development. We have a historic opportunity to help integrate African countries into the global economy, to re-think dependency on foreign assistance and to help strengthen civil society and economic and political institutions. No one believes this bill is a panacea for Africa, but it is very much in our interests to play a constructive role in the evolving economic transition in Africa. If the United States has the vision to be a major player in Africa's economic and political improvement, we will also be a major beneficiary. If we are successful, Africa will provide new trade and investment opportunities for the United States. It will also improve the quality of life for a broader segment of the people of Africa, a goal we must all support and applaud. Mr. President, I ask that the proposed African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) section-by-section description be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). I'm pleased to be joined by Senators McCain, Gramm, Hagel, DeWine and Grams as original cosponsors. Our bill is designed to provide a broad U.S. policy framework towards the nearly fifty countries in sub-Sahara Africa. Specifically, the bill seeks to develop active partnerships with African countries through a set of trade and investment initiatives and incentives in exchange for a commitment from those countries to make the transition to market economies. For decades U.S. policy towards Africa was based largely on a series of bilateral aid relationships. Our involvement in Africa was influenced by strategic considerations inherent in the cold war. Our assistance programs targeted humanitarian crises and natural disasters and they helped nurture a variety of health, nutritional, educational and agricultural programs. As important as these programs have been, they have not promoted much economic development, fostered much self- reliance or promoted political stability for the vast majority of the people of sub-Sahara Africa. Nor have they particularly benefitted the American economy. For these reasons, it is long past due that the United States re-evaluate this policy. That is the purpose of our bill. Last year, a similar bill was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives but did not reach the floor of the Senate. The bill has been introduced last month in the House and the House committees have been active. Already, the bill is scheduled to be reported by both the Ways and Means and International Relations Committees very soon. I understand that it is scheduled for a floor vote in the House in the next several weeks. The Administration supports this legislation because it mirrors its own initiatives on Africa. Indeed, President Clinton cited the initiative and the bill in his last two State of the Union addresses before the Congress. Virtually all African Ambassadors have endorsed this bill and are committed to working to pass and enact it this year. Our bill enjoys support within the American business community and among many non-governmental organizations involved in Africa. Mr. President, the AGOA is intended to promote greater economic self- reliance in Africa through enhanced private sector activity and trade incentives for those countries meeting eligibility requirements and wishing to participate. The bill authorizes the President to grant duty-free treatment to certain products currently excluded from the GSP program, subject to the sensitivity analysis of the International Trade Commission. It extends the GSP program for Africa for 10 years, a provision which is important for long-term business planning. The bill also would increase access to U.S. markets for African textiles and other products. It would remove U.S. quotas on African textile imports which now amount to less than one percent of our worldwide textile imports. The bill includes unusually strong transshipment language that is the toughest ever proposed. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated last year that reducing tariffs on textiles from Africa would have a negligible effect on our economy but would give a high boost to Africa's fledgling manufacturing base. The jobs and foreign exchange earnings that would be gained in Africa under this initiative will enable Africans to purchase more products from the United States. In my judgement, the AGOA is a modest bill which, if adopted, could have immodest results in Africa. It takes a long-term view and provides a policy road map for achieving economic growth and opportunity. It will take some time for the initiatives embedded in this legislation to have a measurable impact on economic growth in Africa. Nonetheless, we need to look ahead over the next decades and to assist wherever possible in the development of those areas that have not been successfully or fully integrated into the world economy. Much of Africa falls into this category. My bill is intended to help facilitate that transition. Strategic planning now will help create a better, more productive and prosperous future. Mr. President, our bill includes a number of other attractive provisions. It includes two new private sector financed funds--an equity fund and an infrastructure fund both of which would be backed by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). If successful, these funds will lead to improvements in such areas as African roads, telecommunications and power plants each of which can accelerate economic activity in Africa. It includes provisions for enhanced visibility for Africa in our international deliberations on trade and finance and increased technical assistance for economic management. It establishes a Forum to facilitate high level discussions on trade and investment policies between the U.S. and Africa. Most importantly, our bill signals the start of a new era in U.S.- African relations based less on bilateral aid ties and more business relationships, less on paternalism and more on partnerships, and one that builds upon the long term prospects of African societies rather than on short-term, reactive policies. Many African societies have been undergoing impressive political and economic transformations. Africa's economic potential is substantial. There are more than 600 million people in sub-Sahara Africa, but Africa's share of foreign annual direct investment commands less than two percent of global direct investment flows. Much of that capital comes from Europe which has an established market and investment presence in Africa. Nonetheless, several African countries enjoy sustained economic growth at or above 6%, despite the strains in the global economy that began in Southeast Asia and spread to other parts of the world. Indeed, U.S. Trade with sub-Sahara Africa exceeds our trade with all the states of the former Soviet Union combined and the potential for expansion will grow as these economies expand and mature. The enhanced trade and private investment benefits in the bill will be available to all African societies but especially to those countries which undertake sustained economic reform, maintain acceptable human rights practices and make progress towards good governance. These standards are similar to those applied in other parts of the world. Indeed, without these standards the private sector would be unlikely to invest in Africa. The United States can play a significant role in helping promote Africa development. We have a historic opportunity to help integrate African countries into the global economy, to re-think dependency on foreign assistance and to help strengthen civil society and economic and political institutions. No one believes this bill is a panacea for Africa, but it is very much in our interests to play a constructive role in the evolving economic transition in Africa. If the United States has the vision to be a major player in Africa's economic and political improvement, we will also be a major beneficiary. If we are successful, Africa will provide new trade and investment opportunities for the United States. It will also improve the quality of life for a broader segment of the people of Africa, a goal we must all support and applaud. Mr. President, I ask that the proposed African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) section-by-section description be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, during the Cold War, the United States co- existed with the Soviet Union in a strategic environment characterized by high-risk but low-probability of a ballistic missile exchange between the two countries involving nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Today, however, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, the opposite is the case--we live in a lower-risk but higher-probability environment with respect to ballistic missile exchanges. In other words, even as the probability of a large-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia has mercifully declined, the probability that one or several weapons of mass destruction might be used to attack the American homeland or American forces at home or abroad has increased. Indeed, absent a U.S. response to the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that is as focused, serious, and vigorous as America's cold war deterrent strategy to protect the American homeland and the West, Americans can anticipate the threatened as well as the actual use of diverse weapons delivery systems to attack the U.S. homeland in the future. Missile defense must be a part of that response. For that reason, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the legislation before us and commend Senator Cochran for his leadership on this issue. Let me explain my strong support for this bill. Missile defense is not a silver bullet that, by itself, can adequately protect the United States from the enhanced threats posed by ballistic missile proliferation and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But it is an important component that gives added credibility to the other elements of our strategy. I approach the response to these threats to American security through the prism of ``defense in depth.'' There are three main lines of defense against emerging ballistic missile threats and weapons of mass destruction. Together, they help form the policy fabric of an integrated defense in depth. The first line of defense is preventing proliferation at potential sources abroad. The second is deterring and interdicting the flow of illicit trade in these weapons and materials. The third line of defense is ``homeland defense'' and involves programs that run the gamut from preparing domestically for WMD crises to protection against limited ballistic missile attacks. With respect to the initial line of defense, the United States is implementing programs that address the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction at the greatest distance possible from our borders and at the most prevalent source, the former Soviet Union. While much more remains to be done, the Nunn-Lugar Scorecard is impressive. Nunn-Lugar has facilitated the destruction of 344 ballistic missiles, 286 ballistic missile launchers, 37 bombers, 96 submarine missile launchers, and 30 submarine launched ballistic missiles. It also has sealed 191 nuclear test tunnels. Most notably, 4,838 warheads that were on strategic systems aimed at the United States have been deactivated. All at a cost of less than one-third of one percent of the Department of Defense's annual budget. Without Nunn-Lugar, Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus would still have thousands of nuclear weapons. Instead, all three countries are nuclear weapons-free. The second line of defense against these threats involves efforts to deter and interdict the transfer of such weapons and materials at far- away borders. Nunn-Lugar and the U.S. Customs Service is working at the borders of former Soviet states to assist with the establishment of export control systems and customs services. In many cases these nations have borders that are thousands of miles long, but local governments do not have the infrastructure or ability to monitor, patrol, or secure them. These borders are particularly permeable, including points of entry into Iran on the Caspian Sea and other rogue nations. We must continue to plug these porous borders abroad. These nations are seeking our help and it is in our interests to supply it. Secure borders in this region of the world would strengthen our second line of defense and serve as another proliferation choke-point. The third line of defense involves the United States preparing domestically to respond to these threats. That is the purpose of the 1996 Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act. This law directs professionals from the Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others to join into partnerships with local emergency professionals in cities across the country. The Pentagon intends to supply training and equipment to 120 cities across the country over the next four years. To date, 52 metropolitan areas have received training to deal with these potential threats. We must take those steps necessary to protect the American people from these threats and Nunn-Lugar and Nunn-Lugar-Domenici make powerful contributions to our efforts. We have made significant progress in reducing these threats and constructing a defense-in-depth. But a complete defense-in-depth must include protection from missile attack. I was pleased to see this common-sense, bipartisan approach to the missile defense issue embodied in the Cochran bill. The bill states: ``It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible a national missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack.'' This bill offers a new approach to the missile defense policy debate. It does not specify a specific system architecture or deployment dates which have bogged down previous legislative proposals. The national missile defense system promoted both in this legislation would not be capable of defending against thousands of warheads being launched against the United States. Rather, we are planning a system capable of defending against the much smaller and relatively unsophisticated ICBM threat that a rogue nation or terrorist group could mount as well as one capable of shooting down an unauthorized or accidentally launched missile. At minimum, the recent revelations over Chinese nuclear espionage suggests that China is intent on building its military capabilities to a point that exceeds the projections and assessments of the U.S. military and intelligence community. The Cox committee findings have done for American appreciation of the potential Chinese nuclear threat what the Rumsfeld Commission did for our knowledge of North Korean and Iranian capabilities. And like the latter, the former may highlight the need to review the impact of such enhanced nuclear capabilities on our existing assumptions and requirements with respect to a limited ballistic missile defense system. Illicit acquisition and testing of the design for the W-88 nuclear warhead strongly suggests that the Chinese are modernizing their strategic force and using such tests to develop mobile missiles to possibly penetrate missile defense. Acquisition of United States nuclear warhead technology will give China a major boost in its strategic capability when added to other recent improvements to its long-range missiles. Indeed, possession of the design of the W-88 would have helped China advance toward key strategic goals. Equally important, China's possession of the design of advanced United States warheads poses a proliferation risk. Such warheads have features that could prove useful to aspiring nuclear weapons states. In brief, if China shared W-88 warhead design information with nations like North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, they could develop and deploy a more potent nuclear force in a shorter period of time. Lastly, lighter, smaller warheads in the Chinese nuclear arsenal will increase the range of Chinese missiles and make it easier for submarine-launched ballistic missiles to hit the United States. And this, in turn, could make a strategic difference if the United States and China were once again to come to odds over Taiwan. Certainly, it could have an impact on the efficacy of any American plans to include Taiwan--or Japan for that matter--in any regional missile defense system. In short, these recent revelations should force us to reconsider a number of the assumptions and resulting requirements that underlie our thinking both on theater as well as national missile defense. The recent report by the Rumsfeld Commission raised serious doubts about the core assumptions that undergird administration policy for developing a national missile defense systems and for considering amendments to the ABM Treaty. The Cox committee report not only called into question other core assumptions but also the requirements for an effective, if limited, national missile defense system. The Rumsfeld Commission took an independent look at the critical question of warning time and not only dissented from the intelligence community's estimates but struck at the core of the administration's ``3+3'' policy by finding that a ballistic missile threat to the United States could emerge with little or no warning over the next 5 years. Even before the Rumsfeld Commission issued its report, Senator Cochran, along with Senator Inouye, introduced the legislation before us. It directs the deployment of effective anti-missile defenses of the territory of the United States as soon as ``technologically feasible.'' By making a missile defense deployment decision dependent on technical readiness as opposed to intelligence estimates about emerging threats and warning time, this legislation appeared to many to take an approach to missile defense that is fundamentally different from the administration's policy. Indeed, critics of the Cochran bill have gone out of their way to try and paint major differences with the administration's policy. The Cochran bill attempts to determine whether and how our current policy on national missile defense should be changed in light of the growing disutility of warning time and intelligence estimates as triggers for deployment decisions. While critics may argue that the Cochran bill neither provides a clear answer to that question or a clear policy alternative to that of the administration, it does propose that a deployment decision rest on more than whether a national missile defense system simply is ``technologically feasible''. The Cochran bill also sensibly insists that the national missile defense system be effective ``against limited ballistic missile attacks (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)'' before it is deployed. The Cochran bill is a statement of intentions, not a policy map, and it represents not an escape from but rather a recognition of the difficult intelligence and policy problems with respect to the kinds of emerging ballistic missile threats, the time-frame for their emergence, and what we should do about them. So the Cochran bill recognizes that there will remain the tough policy and intelligence questions that cannot be ducked. The 1972 ABM Treaty was intended to preclude the kind of nationwide missile defenses that could undermine the credibility of a large second strike deterrent, using measures based on technology over 25 years ago. In 1999, both the threats and the technology have changed. The threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is clearest, ant the ABM Treaty should not be allowed to interfere with programs to deploy effective defenses. Equally important, there is nothing in the Cochran bill that would prevent us from engaging the Russians in discussions about modifying the ABM Treaty to permit effective national defenses against the kinds of missile attacks that should constitute the post-cold-war threat of concern to both countries. If these exchanges are not successful, then consideration can be given to withdrawing from the agreement. Finally, critics of the Cochran bill complain both about the timing of the bill as well as the message its sends to the Russians. Three points are worth making. First, for the critics there is never a good time to take up missile defense and in this they are joined by the Russians. And to the great surprise of absolutely no one, the Russians have announced that the Duma might be prepared to take up START II again. With Russian Prime Minister Primakov on his way to Washington, I would say that the timing is just about right. The administration must be more forthcoming with Russia on the issue of missile defense. It must explain to Moscow that this defense is not meant as a threat or an attempt to neutralize Russia. Rather, we are attempting to protect ourselves from the machinations of rogue states and terrorist groups. In my trips to Russia and in visits with Russian legislators and members of the Yeltsin Government, I have continued to inform them of a simple fact: America will protect itself. The Russians--and the world--need to understand that we will proceed with non-proliferation, domestic preparedness, and missile defense to protect the American people against an attack from a rogue state or terrorist group or an accidental or unauthorized attack by another nation. Secondly, Russian nuclear reductions and eliminations are continuing and even accelerating with American help despite the absence of START II ratification. To the extent that those eliminations become constrained, it will be for reasons of resources, not lack of Duma approval of START II. Thirdly, critics of the Cochran bill would argue that the congressional expression of intent embodied in the legislation regarding deployment of a limited missile defense system will prejudice any chances of negotiating appropriate adjustments in the ABM Treaty with the Russians to accommodate such defenses. There I disagree! It is precisely because many Russians have doubted the serious intent of the Clinton administration in actually proceeding with a limited deployment under the ``3+3'' plan that we have been treated to dire predictions out of Moscow about the ``end of arms control'' were the United States to ultimately proceed with missile defense. Rather than prejudicing any opportunity to negotiate changes in the ABM Treaty, I believe that the statement of intent embodied in this legislation to ultimately defend ourselves against limited ballistic missile attacks is a prerequisite to successful ABM modification negotiations. It has never been our technological prowess nor our ability to amass and apply resources to a problem that the Russians have doubted; it has been our political will that has been suspect in Russian eyes when the choices to be made were difficult ones. In conclusion, the ballistic missile threat to our security interests is real. But it is also complex. The Cochran bill recognizes these realities. But the bill also recognizes that it is not the only threat we face nor can it be addressed in isolation from other major security issues and policies. As Senator Cochran said, this legislation represents not the end of the missile defense policy and program debate but rather the beginning. If I recall correctly where the two parties stood on the issue of missile defense even a year or two ago, I am struck by the efforts of a few dedicated Members on both sides to bridge the gap in our legislative approaches in the interest of addressing the growing vulnerability of the American homeland to ballistic missile attacks. We have come a considerable distance in the last year in narrowing our differences. Senate passage by a strong majority of this expression of policy intent with regard to the ultimate deployment of an effective limited missile defense system is a measured but essential first step.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Wednesday, March 17, 1999 in SR-328A at 8 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the current status of the federal crop insurance program and explore the various proposals to expand and/or restructure the program.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be printed in the Record. The rules follow: