Richard Lugar

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 10, 1999, in SR-328A at 8 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the nature of agricultural production and financial risk, the role of insurance and futures markets, and what is and what should be the Federal Government's role in helping farmers manage risk.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to open foreign markets, eliminate unfair trade barriers and secure for farmers the ability to export their products abroad. By enacting the 1996 FAIR Act, commonly known as Freedom to Farm, we gave farmers to freedom to make planting decisions for themselves, free from government controls. However, Freedom to Farm is a compact. Freedom to Farm means freedom to export, and in exchange for phasing out subsidies, Congress committed to secure free, fair and open markets for our farmer's exports. This legislation will improve opportunities to export at a time when such opportunities are more important than ever for U.S. agriculture. No sector of the economy is more reliant on international trade than agriculture. Approximately three out of ten acres of domestic agriculture production are sold in markets outside of the U.S. and agricultural exports make a positive impact on our international balance of payments. Despite this success, a great deal of untapped export potential still exists. Farmers are reliant on the ability to export and this legislation will enhance that ability. Barriers need to be removed--barriers we impose on ourselves and barriers imposed by others. This legislation addresses several items but none is more important than sanctions. This legislation exempts commercial agricultural exports from unilateral economic sanctions. We impose export barriers on ourselves when we unilaterally sanction foreign countries. Such sanctions do not preclude the targeted country from looking elsewhere for agricultural commodities. U.S. competitors quickly fill the void left when the U.S. denies itself market access. Sales are lost and our status as a reliable business partner suffers. We often do more harm to ourselves than we do to the target country. Unilateral sanctions have cost billions of dollars in U.S. income and have cost thousands of U.S. jobs. We must end the practice of closing foreign markets for our own exports at a time when such exports are more vital than ever for agriculture in this country. Apart from sanctions, a number of barriers are imposed on U.S. farm exports by other countries. The World Trade Organization will hold an important round of agricultural negotiations later this year in Seattle. These negotiations offer an important opportunity to address tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. agricultural exports. We must take advantage of this opportunity to open foreign markets and eliminate unfair export barriers. This legislation provides important guidelines for these and other negotiations. Mr. President, U.S. agriculture is the best in the world. This legislation will allow our farmers to take better advantage of their position by opening up foreign markets and eliminating barriers to agricultural exports. This is the most important thing we as Congress can do for our farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to open foreign markets, eliminate unfair trade barriers and secure for farmers the ability to export their products abroad. By enacting the 1996 FAIR Act, commonly known as Freedom to Farm, we gave farmers to freedom to make planting decisions for themselves, free from government controls. However, Freedom to Farm is a compact. Freedom to Farm means freedom to export, and in exchange for phasing out subsidies, Congress committed to secure free, fair and open markets for our farmer's exports. This legislation will improve opportunities to export at a time when such opportunities are more important than ever for U.S. agriculture. No sector of the economy is more reliant on international trade than agriculture. Approximately three out of ten acres of domestic agriculture production are sold in markets outside of the U.S. and agricultural exports make a positive impact on our international balance of payments. Despite this success, a great deal of untapped export potential still exists. Farmers are reliant on the ability to export and this legislation will enhance that ability. Barriers need to be removed--barriers we impose on ourselves and barriers imposed by others. This legislation addresses several items but none is more important than sanctions. This legislation exempts commercial agricultural exports from unilateral economic sanctions. We impose export barriers on ourselves when we unilaterally sanction foreign countries. Such sanctions do not preclude the targeted country from looking elsewhere for agricultural commodities. U.S. competitors quickly fill the void left when the U.S. denies itself market access. Sales are lost and our status as a reliable business partner suffers. We often do more harm to ourselves than we do to the target country. Unilateral sanctions have cost billions of dollars in U.S. income and have cost thousands of U.S. jobs. We must end the practice of closing foreign markets for our own exports at a time when such exports are more vital than ever for agriculture in this country. Apart from sanctions, a number of barriers are imposed on U.S. farm exports by other countries. The World Trade Organization will hold an important round of agricultural negotiations later this year in Seattle. These negotiations offer an important opportunity to address tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. agricultural exports. We must take advantage of this opportunity to open foreign markets and eliminate unfair export barriers. This legislation provides important guidelines for these and other negotiations. Mr. President, U.S. agriculture is the best in the world. This legislation will allow our farmers to take better advantage of their position by opening up foreign markets and eliminating barriers to agricultural exports. This is the most important thing we as Congress can do for our farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to address what has become an increasingly heavy burden for middle-income taxpayers: the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. My bill would retroactively index to inflation the exemptions used to calculate an individual taxpayer's AMT liability. The indexation would begin in 1993--the last time these exemptions were raised. The AMT is conspicuous for its lack of indexation. Under the regular income tax, the tax rate structure, the standard deductions, the personal exemptions, and certain other structural components are indexed so that taxpayers are not pushed into higher income tax brackets just because their income has kept pace with the cost of living. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that in 1997, 605,000 taxpayers were subject to the AMT. According to these same estimates, which take into account the changes in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, taxpayers subject to the AMT could total 12 million by 2007. This is an increase of more than 1,800 percent in the number of taxpayers paying this particular tax. According to the Joint Tax Committee, this dramatic expansion of the AMT's reach can largely be attributed to the lack of indexation of the AMT exemptions. The AMT was created in 1969 after a Treasury Department study revealed that 155 individuals who had annual incomes in excess of $200,000 had avoided paying taxes because of loopholes in the tax code. We can all agree that upper-income individuals should pay their fair share of taxes. The AMT was created effectively to be a tax on the use of incentives and preferences to reduce an individual's income tax liability. However, since its implementation, the AMT has inadvertently created larger tax burdens for the middle-class, who were never meant to be subject to the AMT. Of the more than two million taxpayers who this year will be subject to the AMT, about half will have incomes between $30,000 and $100,000. Some are single working parents; and some are people who make as little as $527 a week, according to a recent article by David Cay Johnston in the January 10, 1999 New York Times. Mr. President, I will submit this article for the Record. Overall, the number of people affected by this tax is expected to grow 26 percent a year for the next decade. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 accelerated the growth of the AMT. Under this law, even more middle-income families may be subject to the AMT because they cannot take the full value of their child and education tax credits without reaching the AMT limits for deductions. Even if Congress were to exempt the child and education tax credits from the AMT calculation, it would only slow the spread of the AMT slightly if the tax is not indexed for inflation, according to a study by two Treasury Department economists, Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski. I will also submit their study for the Record. I believe that indexing the AMT exemptions is the best way to restrain the unintended reach of the AMT. The AMT exemptions have only been raised once, in 1993, by 12.5 percent, from $40,000 to $45,000. Since 1986, when the tax code was last overhauled, the cost of living has risen 43 percent. Indexing would bring the AMT into line with the rest of our tax structure. It would also avoid adding any complexity to the already burdensome task of taxpaying Americans. Let me give you a real life example of how the AMT has crept up on middle-income taxpayers. The New York Times article provided a stark picture of the AMT. David and Margaret Klaassen of Marquette, Kansas, are a couple with 13 children. Mr. Klaassen works at home as a lawyer. In 1997, Mr. Klaassen earned $89,751 and paid $5,989 in Federal income tax. The IRS sent the Klaassens a notice in December 1998 demanding an additional payment of $3,761 under the AMT, including a penalty. The Klaassens' tax bill was higher because the AMT, a tax mechanism aimed at wealthy individuals who would otherwise pay no taxes, applied to them. The Klaassens are subject to the AMT because medical expenses for their 13 children, which include costs of battling their son's leukemia, resulted in exemptions and deductions totaling more than $45,000. Certainly the Congress did not intend for the AMT to create an extra burden for families like the Klaassens. Mr. President, there is agreement from both the Administration and Congress that the AMT is a growing problem for the middle class and that something must be done. In this new era of budget surpluses, the time has come for us to act to restore some measure of fairness and simplicity to our income tax code. This is why I advocate indexing the AMT, an approach that is supported by both the Tax Foundation and Citizens for Tax Justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill to index the AMT exemptions for inflation as well as additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to address what has become an increasingly heavy burden for middle-income taxpayers: the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. My bill would retroactively index to inflation the exemptions used to calculate an individual taxpayer's AMT liability. The indexation would begin in 1993--the last time these exemptions were raised. The AMT is conspicuous for its lack of indexation. Under the regular income tax, the tax rate structure, the standard deductions, the personal exemptions, and certain other structural components are indexed so that taxpayers are not pushed into higher income tax brackets just because their income has kept pace with the cost of living. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that in 1997, 605,000 taxpayers were subject to the AMT. According to these same estimates, which take into account the changes in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, taxpayers subject to the AMT could total 12 million by 2007. This is an increase of more than 1,800 percent in the number of taxpayers paying this particular tax. According to the Joint Tax Committee, this dramatic expansion of the AMT's reach can largely be attributed to the lack of indexation of the AMT exemptions. The AMT was created in 1969 after a Treasury Department study revealed that 155 individuals who had annual incomes in excess of $200,000 had avoided paying taxes because of loopholes in the tax code. We can all agree that upper-income individuals should pay their fair share of taxes. The AMT was created effectively to be a tax on the use of incentives and preferences to reduce an individual's income tax liability. However, since its implementation, the AMT has inadvertently created larger tax burdens for the middle-class, who were never meant to be subject to the AMT. Of the more than two million taxpayers who this year will be subject to the AMT, about half will have incomes between $30,000 and $100,000. Some are single working parents; and some are people who make as little as $527 a week, according to a recent article by David Cay Johnston in the January 10, 1999 New York Times. Mr. President, I will submit this article for the Record. Overall, the number of people affected by this tax is expected to grow 26 percent a year for the next decade. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 accelerated the growth of the AMT. Under this law, even more middle-income families may be subject to the AMT because they cannot take the full value of their child and education tax credits without reaching the AMT limits for deductions. Even if Congress were to exempt the child and education tax credits from the AMT calculation, it would only slow the spread of the AMT slightly if the tax is not indexed for inflation, according to a study by two Treasury Department economists, Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski. I will also submit their study for the Record. I believe that indexing the AMT exemptions is the best way to restrain the unintended reach of the AMT. The AMT exemptions have only been raised once, in 1993, by 12.5 percent, from $40,000 to $45,000. Since 1986, when the tax code was last overhauled, the cost of living has risen 43 percent. Indexing would bring the AMT into line with the rest of our tax structure. It would also avoid adding any complexity to the already burdensome task of taxpaying Americans. Let me give you a real life example of how the AMT has crept up on middle-income taxpayers. The New York Times article provided a stark picture of the AMT. David and Margaret Klaassen of Marquette, Kansas, are a couple with 13 children. Mr. Klaassen works at home as a lawyer. In 1997, Mr. Klaassen earned $89,751 and paid $5,989 in Federal income tax. The IRS sent the Klaassens a notice in December 1998 demanding an additional payment of $3,761 under the AMT, including a penalty. The Klaassens' tax bill was higher because the AMT, a tax mechanism aimed at wealthy individuals who would otherwise pay no taxes, applied to them. The Klaassens are subject to the AMT because medical expenses for their 13 children, which include costs of battling their son's leukemia, resulted in exemptions and deductions totaling more than $45,000. Certainly the Congress did not intend for the AMT to create an extra burden for families like the Klaassens. Mr. President, there is agreement from both the Administration and Congress that the AMT is a growing problem for the middle class and that something must be done. In this new era of budget surpluses, the time has come for us to act to restore some measure of fairness and simplicity to our income tax code. This is why I advocate indexing the AMT, an approach that is supported by both the Tax Foundation and Citizens for Tax Justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill to index the AMT exemptions for inflation as well as additional material 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 will meet on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 in SD-106 at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review federal child nutrition programs. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Wednesday, February 24, 1999, in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the proposed FY2000 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. Chief Justice, for the first time in 120 years, and only for the second time in U.S. history, the Senate is about to conclude a Presidential impeachment trial. Our Founding Fathers viewed the power to remove a President as a necessary constitutional safeguard, but they wanted to make certain that the process was sufficiently difficult that the will of the voters would be overturned only for the gravest of reasons. They wrote the words ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' as a threshold, but left it to us to determine what transgressions met this standard. All of us have endeavored to fulfill this enormous responsibility. From the beginning of the consideration of impeachment last year, many Members of Congress in both parties have made public statements expressing their opinions that the President lied to a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice on numerous occasions. These judgments are apparently shared by large majorities of the American people as illustrated in frequent public opinion polls. The same polls have consistently found that a large majority of Americans do not want the President to suffer the Constitutional consequence of these breaches of law, namely, removal from office. Since the House voted for impeachment, almost all 45 Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have voiced their skepticism about voting to remove President Clinton from office. Early in the trial, 44 Democrats voted to dismiss the impeachment proceedings outright. Thus, a two-thirds majority vote needed for a guilty verdict has never been a likely outcome of the trial. In the background, most Senate Democrats and several Republicans have worked on a motion to censure President Clinton. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein, drafted a censure resolution that attracted substantial bipartisan support and was published in the New York Times of February 6, 1999. It stated: Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameless, reckless and indefensible; Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials in all branches of the United States Government; Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings; Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter is unacceptable for a President of the United States, does demean the Office of the President as well as the President himself, and creates disrespect for the laws of the land; Whereas President Clinton fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior; Whereas future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect; Whereas William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil actions; Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office of the President; and Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, through his conduct in this matter, has violated the trust of the American people: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and condemns his conduct in the strongest terms. Citizens might ask how a Senator could vote for a resolution stating that President Clinton ``deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials in all branches of the United States Government'' and ``gave false or misleading testimony and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings'' and yet fail to vote ``guilty'' on articles of impeachment that specifically mention perjury and obstruction of justice. The answer to that question is at the heart of understanding the Senate trial. With few exceptions, Senators recognize that the Constitution gives only one outcome to a verdict of ``guilty,'' namely, removal from office. At the same time, many Senators are shocked by conduct which they call ``shameless, reckless, and indefensible,'' and they want their constituents to know that they have not been fooled or overwhelmed by Presidential charm. They have taken the initiative to explicitly denounce the bizarre conduct and the extraordinary corruption of this President. Members of both parties have deplored the fact that the President conducted an illicit sustained physical sexual relationship in spaces close to the Oval Office and publicly denied this to his family, his staff, and in televised statements to the world only to see all of the elaborate cover-up collapse after DNA tests on the dress of a young woman. But the impeachment trial of President Clinton is not about adultery. The impeachment trial involves the President's illegal efforts to deny a fair result in the suit brought by Ms. Paula Jones. I have no doubt that the President worked deliberately to deny justice in this suit. In doing so, he lied to a federal grand jury and worked to induce others to give false testimony, thus obstructing justice. Ms. Jones has often been described as a small person in our judicial system. In contrast, the President, who at the time of his inaugural takes a solemn oath to preserve and protect equal justice under the law for even the most humble of Americans, is a giant figure. As Senators who also take a solemn oath, we must ask ourselves the fundamental question: ``Is any man or woman above the law?'' The legal defense team for the President does not admit that there is adequate proof of either perjury or obstruction of justice. They contend that Senators must embrace a theory of ``immaculate obstruction'' in which jobs are found, gifts are concealed, false affidavits are filed, and the character of a witness is publicly impugned, all without the knowledge or direction of the President, who is the sole beneficiary of these actions. The President's lawyers further contend that such crimes are, in any event, insufficient to remove the President. The drafters of the Constitution would have rejected these rationalizations for the indefensible Presidential misconduct at issue. They were political men with a profound reverence for the sanctity of the oath and our entire system of justice. They did not suggest that Senators park their common sense and their stewardship for the security of our country at the Senate door as they entered into an impeachment trial. In fact, we have discovered in this trial that the founding fathers wanted the Senate to act as ``triers'' of fact and in the roles of both trial court and jury. Most importantly, they wanted us to act as guardians of the Constitution and thus the liberty and the rights under law of each individual American. Liberty itself is directly threatened when a President subverts the very judicial system that secures those rights. During this trial, I have concluded that the prosecutors made their case. I will vote to remove President Clinton from office not only because he is guilty of both articles of impeachment, but also because I believe the crimes committed here demonstrate that he is capable of lying routinely whenever it is convenient. He is not trustworthy. Simply to be near him in the White House has meant not only tragic heartache for his wife and his daughter but enormous legal bills for staff members and friends who admired him and yearned for his success but who have been caught up in his incessant ``war room'' strategies to maintain him in office. Senator Feinstein begins her censure resolution with the appropriate word ``shameless.'' The President should have simply resigned and spared his country the ordeal of this impeachment trial and its aftermath. We have been fortunate that this damaged presidency has occurred during a time of relative peace and prosperity. In times of war or national emergency it is often necessary for the President to call upon the nation to make great economic and personal sacrifices. In these occasions, our President had best be trustworthy--a truth teller whose life of principled leadership and integrity we can count upon. Some commentators have suggested that with the President having less than two years left in his term of office, the easiest approach is to let the clock expire while hoping that he is sufficiently careful, if not contrite, to avoid reckless and indefensible conduct. But as Senators, we know that the dangers of the world constantly threaten us. Rarely do two years pass without the need for strong Presidential leadership and the exercise of substantial moral authority from the White House. Of particular concern are the implications of the President's behavior for our national security. As Commander-in-Chief, President Clinton fully understood the risks that he was imposing on the country's security with his secret affair in the White House. Even in this post-Cold War era, foreign intelligence agents constantly look for opportunities for deception, propaganda, and blackmail. No higher targets exist than the President and the White House. The President even acknowledged in a phone call with Ms. Lewinsky that foreign agents could be monitoring their conversations. Yet this knowledge did not dissuade the President from continuing his affair. With premeditation, he chose his own gratification above the security of his country and the success of his presidency. Then he chose to compound the damage by systematically lying about it over the span of many months. I believe that our country will be stronger and better prepared to meet our challenges with a cleansing of the Presidency. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world because we are the strongest country economically and militarily, and in the appeal of our idealism for liberty and freedom of conscience. Our President must be strong because a President personifies the rule of law that he is sworn to uphold and protect. We must believe him and trust him if we are to follow him. His influence on domestic and foreign policies comes from that trust, which a lifetime of words, deeds, and achievements has built. President Clinton has betrayed that trust. His leadership has been diminished because most Americans have come to the cynical conclusion that they must read between the lines of his statements and try to catch a glimmer of truth amidst the spin. His subordinates have demeaned public life by contending that ``everybody does it'' as a defense of why the President has erred so grievously. But every President does not lie to a federal grand jury. Every President does not obstruct justice. The last President to do so was President Nixon, and he had sufficient reverence for the office to resign before the House even voted articles of impeachment. The impeachment trial must come to an end. The Presidency will be strengthened and our ability as Americans to meet important challenges will be strengthened if we begin to restore our faith in the truth and justice that our government must exemplify and preserve. It will not be enough simply to condemn the tragic misdeeds of President Clinton. He must be removed from office as the Constitution prescribes, and we must celebrate the strength of that same Constitution which also provides a path for a new beginning. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Tuesday, January 26, 1999, in SR-328A at 8 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review economic concentration in agribusiness. This hearing was originally scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation amending the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program, known as R- SAT, to enable jurisdictions below the state level to realize greater benefits from the program. The R-SAT program allows the Attorney General to make grants for the establishment of treatment programs within local correctional facilities, but only a few jurisdictions have been able to take advantage of these grants. The legislation I am offering today will solve this problem by establishing a separate Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program, or J-SAT. Under this new program, states will be explicitly authorized to devote up to ten percent of the funds they receive under R-SAT to qualifying J-SAT programs. This legislation will provide matching funds to jail-based treatment programs that meet several criteria. First, the program must be at least three months in length. This is the minimum amount of time for a treatment program to have the desired effect. To qualify for funding, a program must also have been in existence for at least two years. This criterion is intended to ensure that jurisdictions which have already demonstrated a commitment to treatment programs at the local level receive first priority for funding. It also ensures that scarce treatment resources are allocated to programs with a demonstrable track record of success. The third criterion for programs seeking J-SAT funding is that the treatment regimen must include regular drug testing. This is necessary to ensure that some objective measure of the program's success is available. Grant recipients are also encouraged to provide the widest range of aftercare services possible, including job training, education and self-help programs. These steps are necessary to leverage the resources devoted to solving the problem of substance abuse, and to give individuals involved in treatment the best possible chance for successful rehabilitation. I am offering this legislation because substance abuse and problems arising from it are putting a severe strain on the resources of local jurisdictions throughout the nation. This is not a minor problem. The Office of National Drug Control Policy indicates that approximately three-fourths of prison inmates--and over half of those in jails or on probation--are substance abusers, yet only a small percentage of inmates participate in treatment programs while they are incarcerated. The time during which drug-using offenders are in custody or under post-release correctional supervision presents a unique opportunity to reduce drug use and crime through effective drug testing and treatment programs. Research indicates that programs like J-SAT can help to reduce the strain on our communities by cutting drug use in half; by reducing other criminal activity like shoplifting, assault, and drug sales by up to 80 percent; and by reducing arrests for all crimes by up to 64 percent. I would also note that jail-based treatment programs are cost effective. In 1994, the American Correctional Association estimated the annual cost of incarceration at $18,330. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states that treatment while in prison and under post- incarceration supervision can reduce recidivism by roughly 50 percent. Thus, for every $1,800 the government invests in treatment, it saves more than $9,000. Former Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee has estimated that every dollar invested in treatment can save $7 in societal and medical costs. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support the Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment legislation I am introducing today. I also ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a much- loved and respected Hoosier statesman, David Worth Dennis, who passed away on January 6, 1999, at the age of 86. David Dennis represented the eastern section of the State of Indiana in the United States House of Representatives from 1969 to 1975. He served with great courage and distinction on the House Judiciary Committee during the difficult Watergate period. David Dennis' commitment to public service began before and extended beyond his three terms in the House of Representatives. After his graduation from Earlham College and Harvard Law School, he began his career practicing law in Richmond, Indiana. He then served as the prosecuting attorney for Wayne County, Indiana, and then as a First Lieutenant in the JAG Corps of the U.S. Army. He served in the Pacific theater at the end of World War II. Shortly after he came home to Indiana in 1946, he won a seat in the Indiana General Assembly, where he served a total of four terms. I first met Dave during his service in the Indiana House of Representatives, and I frequently corresponded with him during his United States Congressional service. I was pushing the extension of the ``New Federlism,'' in which states and cities obtained and exercised more responsibility. I also was advocating general revenue sharing in which the federal government would send money to states and cities without strings attached in order that the discharge of these additional responsibilities could be paid for. Dave was enthusiastic about diminishing federal prerogatives, but somewhat less enthusiastic about a distribution of federal revenues. Our coming together on the campaign trail in 1974 led to enormous mutual respect. The Judiciary Committee was a battleground for efforts to impeach President Richard Nixon. Dave was a very loyal Republican but, even more importantly, he was a scholarly and thoughtful legislator who believed that insufficient evidence had been produced to vote for articles of impeachment in the Committee. As additional evidence withheld by President Nixon became known, Dave became outspoken in his condemnation of the cover-up and in his demand that President Nixon should resign. I was privileged to watch at close range a courageous public servant at work who, even in the midst of a partisan election campaign, was never in doubt that he should speak the truth as he saw it and let the chips fall where they may. Neither Dave nor I were successful in the 1974 campaign, but I looked forward throughout subsequent years to our meetings. We not only reminisced about battles of the past, we discussed the future with expectations that great things could occur in our country through constructive leadership. David Dennis remained a leader after returning in 1975 to practice law in Richmond, Indiana. Still active in Republican politics, he continued his career as an attorney, where he was loved and respected by the Richmond community. He was known for his fairness and his dedication to the practice of law. Describing Dave's legal calling, a friend quoted in the Richmond Palladium-Item summed up his dedication: ``He understood it as a service to the community. In the same way, David Dennis saw politics as a profession, not a way to get ahead.'' Dave was truly an advocate who loved the roles he played in both the legislative and the judicial systems of our country. I last saw David Dennis at a Republican dinner in Richmond during the 1994 campaign. He was introduced and received a wonderful ovation from Wayne County Republicans, who revered his service and were so grateful for his continuing citizenship in the community he loved. I was able to keep in touch with news of Dave through his son, William C. Dennis II, who served as a remarkably energetic professor at my alma mater, Denison University. In addition to his extensive public service, David Dennis is remembered by friends and family as an engaging storyteller and a skilled tennis player. Most of all, he is remembered as a loyal friend and loving husband and father. My sympathy is with his children, Bill and Ellen, as well as with his four grandchildren as they remember and celebrate the life of an exemplary Hoosier statesman. This standard bearer of a great Quaker tradition at Earlham College added something very special to Indiana Political life. We will miss his wisdom and grace.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Tuesday, January 26, 1999 in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review economic concentration in agribusiness. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation amending the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program, known as R- SAT, to enable jurisdictions below the state level to realize greater benefits from the program. The R-SAT program allows the Attorney General to make grants for the establishment of treatment programs within local correctional facilities, but only a few jurisdictions have been able to take advantage of these grants. The legislation I am offering today will solve this problem by establishing a separate Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment Program, or J-SAT. Under this new program, states will be explicitly authorized to devote up to ten percent of the funds they receive under R-SAT to qualifying J-SAT programs. This legislation will provide matching funds to jail-based treatment programs that meet several criteria. First, the program must be at least three months in length. This is the minimum amount of time for a treatment program to have the desired effect. To qualify for funding, a program must also have been in existence for at least two years. This criterion is intended to ensure that jurisdictions which have already demonstrated a commitment to treatment programs at the local level receive first priority for funding. It also ensures that scarce treatment resources are allocated to programs with a demonstrable track record of success. The third criterion for programs seeking J-SAT funding is that the treatment regimen must include regular drug testing. This is necessary to ensure that some objective measure of the program's success is available. Grant recipients are also encouraged to provide the widest range of aftercare services possible, including job training, education and self-help programs. These steps are necessary to leverage the resources devoted to solving the problem of substance abuse, and to give individuals involved in treatment the best possible chance for successful rehabilitation. I am offering this legislation because substance abuse and problems arising from it are putting a severe strain on the resources of local jurisdictions throughout the nation. This is not a minor problem. The Office of National Drug Control Policy indicates that approximately three-fourths of prison inmates--and over half of those in jails or on probation--are substance abusers, yet only a small percentage of inmates participate in treatment programs while they are incarcerated. The time during which drug-using offenders are in custody or under post-release correctional supervision presents a unique opportunity to reduce drug use and crime through effective drug testing and treatment programs. Research indicates that programs like J-SAT can help to reduce the strain on our communities by cutting drug use in half; by reducing other criminal activity like shoplifting, assault, and drug sales by up to 80 percent; and by reducing arrests for all crimes by up to 64 percent. I would also note that jail-based treatment programs are cost effective. In 1994, the American Correctional Association estimated the annual cost of incarceration at $18,330. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states that treatment while in prison and under post- incarceration supervision can reduce recidivism by roughly 50 percent. Thus, for every $1,800 the government invests in treatment, it saves more than $9,000. Former Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee has estimated that every dollar invested in treatment can save $7 in societal and medical costs. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support the Jail-Based Substance Abuse Treatment legislation I am introducing today. I also ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of myself and Senators Hagel, Helms and Roberts a package of legislation intended to minimize or eliminate the burden that estate and gift taxes place on our economy. The estate tax hinders entrepreneurial activity and job creation in many sectors of our economy. Despite the fact that my bills would help all Americans who face this onerous tax, I come to the estate tax debate because of my interest in American agriculture. As Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have held hearings on the impact of the estate tax on farmers and ranchers. The effects of inheritance taxes are fare reaching in the agricultural community. Citing personal experiences, witnesses described how the estate tax discourages savings, capital investment and job formation. One such story came from a Hoosier, Mr. Woody Barton. He is a fifth generation tree farmer living in the house his great grandparents built in 1885. I visited his 300 acres of forested property last October and can attest to its beauty. Typical of many farmers, Mr. Barton is over 65 years old and wants to leave this legacy to his four children. But he fears that the estate tax may cause his children to strip the timber and then sell the land in order to pay the estate tax bill. His grandmother logged a portion of the land in 1939 to pay the debts that came from the death of her husband. In essence, each generation must buy back the hard work and dedication of their ancestors from the federal government. Mr. Barton believes, and I agree, that the actions of Congress have more impact on the outcome of his family's land than his own planning and investment. This should not be the case. The estate and gift tax falls disproportionately hard on our agricultural producers. Ninety-five percent of farms and ranch operations are sole proprietorships or family partnerships, subjecting a vast majority of these businesses to the threat of inheritance taxes. According to USDA figures, farmers are six times more likely to face inheritance taxes than other Americans. And commercial farm estates-- those core farms that produce 85 percent of our nation's agricultural products--are fifteen times more likely to pay inheritance taxes than other individuals. This hardship will only get worse as the agricultural community gets older, with the average farmer about to have a 60th birthday. Many farmers will shortly confront estate and gift taxes when they pass their farm onto the next generation. Recently, the USDA estimated that between 1992 and 2002, more than 500,000 farmers will retire. Only half of those positions will be replaced by young farmers. Demographic studies indicate that a quarter of all farmers could confront the inheritance tax during the next 20 years. To combat this problem, today I offer several legislative alternatives to provide relief to those impacted by this tax. My first bill would repeal the estate and gift taxes outright. My second bill would phase out the estate tax over five years by gradually raising the unified credit each year until the tax is repealed after the fifth year. My third bill would immediately raise the effective unified credit to $5 million in an effort to address the disproportionate burden that the estate tax places on farmers and small businesses. My last bill would raise the gift tax exemption from $10,000 to $25,000. I believe the best option is a simple repeal of the estate tax. I am hopeful that during this Congress, as members become more aware of the effects of this tax, we can eliminate it from the tax code. However, even if the estate tax is not repealed, the unified credit must be raised significantly. Despite our most recent success in raising the exemption level, inflation has caused a growing percentage of estates to be subjected to the estate tax. My second bill is intended to highlight this point and provide a gradual path to repeal. My third bill focuses on relieving the estate tax burden that falls disproportionately on farmers and small business owners. By raising the exemption amount to $5 million, 96 percent of estates with farm assets and 90 percent of estates with non-corporate business assets would not have to pay estate taxes, according to the IRS. The final bill in this package would raise the gift tax exemption from $10,000 to $25,000. This level has not been adjusted since 1982. Over the years, the inflation has eroded this exemption amount, and I believe this level must be raised to provide Americans with an additional tool for passing productive assets to the next generation. Despite its modest beginnings in 1916, the estate tax has mushroomed into an exorbitant tax on death that discourages savings, economic growth and job formation by blocking the accumulation of entrepreneurial capital and by breaking up family businesses and farms. With the highest marginal rate at 55 percent, more than half of an estate can go directly to the government. By the time the inheritance tax is levied on families, their assets have already been taxed at least once. This form of double taxation violates perceptions of fairness in our tax system. If we are sincere about boosting economic growth, we must consider what effect the estate tax has on a business owner deciding whether to invest in new capital goods or hire a new employee. The Heritage Foundation estimates that repealing the estate tax would annually boost our economic output by $11 billion, create 145,000 new jobs and raise personal income by $8 billion. These figures underscore the current weight of this tax on our economy. One might expect that for all the economic disincentives caused by the estate tax, it must at least provide a sizable contribution to the U.S. Treasury. But in reality, the estate tax only accounts for about 1 percent of federal taxes. It cannot be justified as an indispensable revenue raiser. Given the blow delivered to job formation and economic growth, the estate tax may even cost the Treasury money. Our nation's ability to create new jobs, new opportunities and wealth is damaged as a result of our insistence on collecting a tax that earns less than 1 percent of our revenue. But this tax affects more than just the national economy. It affects how we as a nation think about community, family and work. Small businesses and farms represent much more than assets. They represent years of toil and entrepreneurial risk taking. They also represent the hopes that families have for their children. Part of the American Dream has always been to build up a business, farm or ranch so that economic opportunities and a way of life can be passed on to one's children and grandchildren. I know first-hand about the dangers of this tax to agriculture. My father died when I was 24, leaving his 604-acre farm in Marion County, Indiana, to his family. I helped manage the farm, which had built up considerable debts during my father's illness. Fortunately, after a number of years, we were successful in working out the financial problems and repaying the money. We were lucky. That farm remains in our family because I have been practicing active estate planning and execution of the plan along with profitable farming for each of the last 40 years. But many of today's farmers and small business owners are not so fortunate. Only about 30 percent of businesses are transferred from parent to child, and only about 12 percent of businesses make it to a grandchild. Mr. President, these bills I have introduced will provide policymakers with a range of options as they seek to mitigate the burdens of the estate tax. Doing so will lead to expanded investment incentives and job creation and will reinvigorate an important part of the American Dream. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in the effort to free small businesses, family farms and our economy from this counterproductive tax. I ask unanimous consent that my four bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to open foreign markets for U.S. agricultural exports and raise the profile of agriculture in our nation's trade agenda. By enacting the 1996 FAIR Act, commonly known as Freedom to Farm, we gave farmers the right to make planting decisions themselves, free from government controls. But the FAIR Act is a compact. Freedom to Farm means freedom to sell. In exchange for phasing out subsidies, Congress promised its efforts to secure free, fair, and open markets for U.S. agricultural products. The importance of exports to U.S. agriculture has never been greater. This legislation will improve opportunities, allowing us to take advantage of our dominant position in world food trade. Each year, agricultural products make a positive contribution to our international balance of payments. No sector of the U.S. economy is more critically tied to international trade than agriculture. Approximately three out of ten acres of our agricultural production is exported. Farmers are reliant on the ability to export. We can only secure our farmers' and ranchers' future opportunities by removing trade barriers--those we impose on ourselves and those imposed by others. Mr. President, this bill addresses several items, none of which is more important than sanctions reform. Unilateral economic sanctions often keep our farmers out of major markets. Such sanctions do not preclude the targeted country from buying agricultural commodities elsewhere. Rather, sanctions often have a more profound effect on our own country. U.S. competitors are often quick to offset the effect of our sanctions, in the process harming U.S. commercial interests. Contracts are lost and our status as a reliable business partner suffers. A cardinal test of foreign policy is to determine that, when we use sanctions internationally, our actions do less harm to ourselves than to others. Unilateral food sanctions fail that test. Bans on food exports strike at the most basic human need, the availability of food. Authoritarian regimes can survive food sanctions. It is the people of these nations that suffer. The use of food as a weapon should, in most cases, be abandoned. This legislation exempts from unilateral economic sanctions humanitarian and commercial farm exports and gives the President the authority to waive the food exemption. Mr. President, sanctions reform is only one aspect of improving market access. Significant tariff and non-tariff barriers still inhibit the free flow of agricultural goods. The World Trade Organization will hold an important meeting later this year in our own country. The talks which will commence at this meeting offer an important opportunity to expand overseas markets for our agricultural exports. One goal of this legislation is to achieve more fair and open conditions of trade, and the bill I introduce today provides important guidelines for these upcoming negotiations. It aims to open foreign markets and eliminate unfair and negative trade policy. Furthermore, a ``special 301'' provision for agriculture is included in this bill. This language is similar to S.219 which was introduced by Senator Daschle and Senator Grassley in the 105th Congress and generated bi-partisan support within agriculture. It provides for an investigative process specifically tailored to agricultural trade. The U.S. Trade Representative will use this process to identify those countries which employ unfair trade practices against U.S. agricultural commodities and value-added products. Once in place, remedies which level the playing field are provided. This authority is important as we strive to break down trade barriers and eliminate practices which foreign countries use to bar U.S. agricultural exports. The most important thing we can give to farmers is the ability to export their products abroad. We can give to our farmers the enhanced ability to sell their products in existing and untapped markets. Mr. President, U.S. agriculture is the most productive in the world. This legislation will allow us to take advantage of that position. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a Senate resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the income tax system be abolished and replaced with a broad-based consumption tax on goods and services. I supported IRS reform legislation passed last Congress and will continue to work within the confines of our tax system to improve it. However, the fundamental flaws of the income tax system remain. I strongly believe that Congress should abolish the income tax system in its entirety and begin anew. The problems of the income tax are well documented. By taxing savings and investment at least twice, the income tax has become the biggest impediment to economic growth in the country. Each year it costs Americans more than 5 billion hours of time to comply with it. The system is unfair and riddled with loopholes. It favors foreign imports and discourages American exports. As witnesses testified before Congress last year, the IRS regularly violates the privacy rights of individuals while enforcing the income tax. And finally, the system doesn't work. By its own admission, the Internal Revenue Service fails to collect from nearly 10 million taxpayers, with an estimated $127 billion in uncollected taxes annually. Anything this broken should be ended decisively. One can evaluate a tax system using many criteria. It must be: (1) simple, (2) the least intrusive, (3) fair, (4) transparent, (5) border adjustable, and (6) friendly to savings and investment. I have studied tax reform proposals with these six factors in mind. Many are better than the current income tax. But if we are going to overhaul our tax system, we should choose the one that meets these criteria. I have concluded that a national sales tax is the best alternative. An effective tax system should be simple. Under a national sales tax, the burden of complying with the income tax code would be lifted. There would be no records to keep or audits to fear. According to the Tax Foundation, businesses and individuals spend more than $225 billion to comply with the Tax Code. Under a national sales tax, compliance costs would drop by 90 percent. More than 100 million individuals who currently file taxes would be dropped from the tax rolls. With a national sales tax, the money individuals earned would be their own. Its your decision to save it, invest it, or give it to your children. It is only when you buy something that you are taxed. The national sales tax is the least intrusive of the tax proposals. The IRS would be substantially dismantled. The IRS would no longer look over the shoulders of every taxpayer. Americans would not waste time and effort worrying about recordkeeping, deductions, or exemptions that are part of the current Tax Code. The national sales tax is the fairest alternative. Everyone pays the tax including criminals, illegal aliens, and others who currently avoid taxation. Wealthy Americans with lavish spending habits would pay substantial amounts of taxes under the national sales tax. Individuals who save and invest their money will pay less. Gone are the loopholes and deductions that provide advantages to those with the resources to shelter their income. The national sales tax would also tax the underground economy. When criminals consume the proceeds of their activities, they will pay a tax. Foreign tourists and illegal aliens will pay the tax. Tax systems that rely on income reporting will never collect any of this potential revenue. Of course, the fairness test must likewise consider those with limited means to pay taxes. Like the income tax system, a national sales tax can and should be constructed to lessen the tax burden on those individuals with the least ability to pay. One strategy for addressing this problem would exempt a threshold level of goods and services consumed by each American from the federal sales tax. Another strategy is to exempt items such as housing, food or medicine. I am committed to designing a tax system that does not fall disproportionately on the less fortunate. The national sales tax is the most transparent. A federal tax that is evident to everyone would bolster efforts in Congress to achieve prudence in federal spending. There should be no hidden corporate taxes that are passed on to consumers or withholding mechanisms that mask the amount we pay in taxes. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates that the corporate income tax and its compliance costs increase the cost of goods by 20 to 25 percent. The national sales tax would bring all these hidden costs into the sunshine. Every year the public and Congress should openly debate the tax rate necessary for the federal government to meet its obligations. If average Americans are paying that rate every day, they will make certain that Congress spends public funds wisely. American exports would also benefit from the enactment of a national sales tax. We must adopt a tax system that encourages exports. Most of our trading partners have tax systems that are border adjustable. They are able to strip out their tax when exporting their goods. In comparison, the income tax is not border adjustable. American goods that are sent overseas are taxed twice--once by the income tax and once when they reach their destination. In comparison, the national sales tax would not be levied on exports. It would place our exports on a level playing field with those of our trading partners. But the last and most imperative reason for replacing the income tax with a national sales tax is that it would energize our economy by encouraging savings. The bottom line is that as a nation, we do not save enough. Savings are vital because they are the source of all investment and productivity gains--savings supply the capital for buying a new machine, developing a new product or service, or employing an extra worker. The Japanese save at a rate nine times greater than Americans, and the Germans save five times as much as we do. Today, many believe that Americans inherently consume beyond their means and cannot save enough for the future. Few realize that before World War II, before the income tax system developed into its present form, Americans saved a larger portion of their earnings than the Japanese. A national sales tax would reverse this trend by directly taxing consumption and leaving savings and investment untaxed. Economists agree that a broad-based consumption tax would increase our savings rate substantially. Economist Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University estimates that our savings rate would more than triple in the first year. Economist Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University has concluded that the United States would have experienced one trillion dollars in additional economic growth if it had adopted a consumption tax like the national sales tax in 1986 instead of the current system. As I have outlined here today, I believe the national sales tax is the best tax system to replace the income tax. If we enact a tax system that encourages investment and savings, billions of dollars of investment will flow into our country. This makes sense--America has the most stable political system, the best infrastructure, a highly educated workforce and the largest consumer market in the world. Our economic growth and prosperity would be unsurpassed. I am committed to bringing this message of hope to all Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this important endeavor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1733, as amended, a bill to combat fraud and waste in the food stamp program. This bill will do two things. First, it will require food stamp offices to match food stamp files with Social Security data to identify overpayments to deceased food stamp participants. Second, it will require the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to explore data on the development of a national database to identify overpayments resulting from individuals receiving benefits in two or more states at the same time and implement other program interstate requirements. This bill is the result of the last two General Accounting Office studies that I requested dealing with groups of ineligible people receiving food stamps. In the first report, the GAO reported that 26,000 deceased individuals in four states were counted as members of a food stamp household. According to the GAO, this resulted in overpayments of an estimated $8.6 million. In the second report, the GAO identified over 20,000 individuals who received benefits in at least two states at the same time during 1996. Using administrative records from four states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida), the GAO estimates overpayments of $3.9 million in those states alone. Last year the GAO reported to the Agriculture Committee that over $3 million in food stamp benefits were overpaid to prisoners' households. In response, we passed legislation to stop prisoners from receiving benefits. My bill will require state food stamp agencies to use the Social Security Administration's Death Master file to verify that no deceased individuals are counted as members of food stamp households, either increasing a households' benefits or allowing an individual to illegally receive benefits in the deceased person's name. To give SAA enough time to iron out Year 2000 problems, this provision will not be effective until June 1, 2000. Current law requires that households notify their local welfare office of any changes in the makeup of the household within ten days. The GAO report showed that the deceased individuals were counted in food stamp households for an average of four months; and, in a few instances, the deceased individuals were counted as beneficiaries for the full two years the review was counted. This is unacceptable, particularly since this type of fraud can easily be prevented. Mr. President, one federal agency has the information to prevent this fraud and abuse, but is not sharing it with other agencies issuing federal benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a Death Master File that compiles death information available in the federal government. According to the GAO, a match using SSA's Death Master File information could be a cost-effective method for identifying such individuals in food stamp households and eliminating these overpayments. States already relay on the SSA to verify the social security numbers of food stamp applicants. Therefore, a system already exists in one branch of the federal government that, with some modifications, could stop these overpayments. My bill will also require the United States Department of Agriculture to conduct a study to identify options for a national database to track food stamp participants and combat interstate fraud. The GAO's report validates a Department of Health and Human Services computer match of 15 states which found 18,000 potential duplicated Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cases. At present there is no appropriate national database that tracks in means-tested benefit programs. States have been working individually on the problem of benefits paid in multiple jurisdictions. For example, some states have developed cooperative agreements with neighboring states to share data. Current state efforts are effective, but anything short of a national system is inefficient. Mr. President, the welfare reform bill required states to guard against fraud and abuse, and specifically prohibited participants from receiving benefits in two states. However, the bill did not give states tools to combat this type of fraud. HHS has already fulfilled a congressional mandate to look into some of these issues, so I expect the USDA to use the completed HHS report to Congress as a base upon which to build. Further, I believe that the study should explore the possibility of a ``real time'' database, so that eligibility workers will instantly know if there are any problems with an application. This will avoid the ``pay-and-chase'' problem that forces states to recoup overpayments from beneficiaries after the fact--sometimes years later. This method of fraud enforcement is inefficient, and often a burden on the recipient as well. A national database should not be seen as purely an enforcement tool. There are many cross program benefits for the poor, benefits which may not be apparent today. As with any large governmental database, the study should address how the system will safeguard recipients' privacy and limit unauthorized use and disclosure of data. Means-tested benefits, including food stamps, provide a safety net for millions of people. We cannot allow fraud and abuse to undermine the food stamp program and welfare reform. Integrity is essential to ensure a program that can serve those in need. It is our responsibility to help end fraud and abuse in all federally funded programs. This legislation is an important step in that direction and will help ensure that welfare reform is a success. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Harkin and me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 2116, the USDA Information Technology Reform and Year-200 Compliance Act of 1998. 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 Officer of the Department of Agriculture. Centralization is the most efficient way to manage the complex task of ensuring that all critical computer functions at the department are operational on January 1, 2000. It is also a wiser and more 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 approximately 30 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 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. The centralized approach to the year 2000 issue at USDA led to a lack of focus on departmental priorities. This approach resulted in a lack of guidance, oversight and the development of contingency plans. Responsibility for keeping the mission-critical information technology functioning should clearly rest with the Chief Information Officer. 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. The General Accounting Office has long chronicled USDA's history of problems in managing its information technology investments. In August 1993, USDA received authority to spend up to $2.6 billion on a project called Info Share. The goal of Info Share was to improve operations and delivery of services by reengineering business processes and developing integrated information systems. In August 1994, GAO warned that the acquisition of information technology without business process reenginering would be problematic. Ineffective planning and management resulted in USDA's wasting $100 million on Info Share before it was ultimately disbanded. An August 1998 GAO report warned that USDA's ongoing effort to modernize information technology at its field service centers, faces significant risks. The department could spend more than $3 billion on the project by 2011. The report revealed that USDA has not completed a comprehensive plan for the modernization and lacks the project management structure needed to manage a project of this magnitude. Specifically, USDA has not assigned a senior-level official with overall responsibility, authority and accountability for managing and coordinating the project to ensure it is completed on time and within budget. In March of this year before a House agriculture subcommittee and again in May before the Senate Agriculture Committee, GAO testified in support of strong Chief Information Officer leadership at USDA. The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, the Clinger-Cohen Act, seeks to strengthen executive leadership in information management and institute sound capital investment decision-making to maximize the return on information systems. Consistent with provisions of that act, more accountability and responsibility and responsibility over the substantial investments the department makes in information technology were recommended by the GAO. The GAO also noted major weaknesses in USDA's component agency efforts and testified that mitigating the risk of year 2000 disruptions requires leadership. Last year, I introduced S. 805, 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 prompted some coordination of information technology among the department's agencies and offices. This revised legislation, which includes input from the administration, is now needed to strengthen that coordination and ensure that centralized information technology management continues in the future. This legislation requires that the Chief Information Officer manage the design and implementation of an information technology architecture based on strategic business plans to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's program activities. Included in the bill is authority for the Chief Information Officer to approve expenditures over $200,000 for information resources and for year 2000 compliance purposes, except for minor acquisitions. To accomplish these purposes, the bill requires the secretary to transfer up to 10 percent of each agency's 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 and provides maximum data sharing with USDA customers and other federal and state agencies, which is expected to result in significant reductions in operating costs. The bill requires the Chief Information Officer to address the year 2000 computing crisis throughout USDA agencies, between USDA and other Federal, State, and local agencies and between USDA and private and international partners. 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. LUGAR. As I noted in my earlier remarks, that is my intention. It is my hope that the Secretary will avoid such actions. If, however, the Secretary considers a reduction-in-force or furloughs, I expect that he will first consult the committee before going forward with such actions.

Mr. LUGAR. At no point during deliberations with the Department of Agriculture was it ever envisioned the transfer of information technology funds would cause reductions in force or furloughs. In fact, great care was taken early in the process to exclude salaries and expenses and intergovernmental payments from the calculations used to determine the amount necessary to adequately fund the development of an information technology architecture. This legislation does not authorize reductions in force or furloughs. The information technology architecture includes telecommunications, service center implementation, and site licenses for computer software and hardware. As introduced, the bill required a transfer of 5 percent of the information technology funds from each office and agency to the Chief Information Officer. Five percent of those funds represented approximately $40 million. Further negotiations with the department resulted in a revision in the bill that permits the Secretary to transfer up to 10 percent of the information technology funds. This amendment gives the Secretary the flexibility he requested to adjust transfers commensurate with the information technology architecture needs of each office and agency. This transfer authority terminates on September 30, 2003. I hope this addresses the Senator's concerns.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity before the 105th Congress adjourns to honor our distinguished colleague and my friend, Dan Coats, who will be returning to private life at the end of this Congress. For the past 10 years it has been my privilege to join with Senator Coats in serving the people of Indiana. During that time, he has epitomized strong character and devotion to public service. Senator Coats has been a determined advocate for his point of view, but also a good listener who has often forged compromises that benefited our Nation. He has been a work horse able to shoulder the daily burdens of a thousand details, but also a thoughtful observer who sees beyond the politics of the moment to provide perspective on the direction of our country. And he has been an effective defender of the interests of Indiana, while always upholding his national responsibilities. Dan Coats has applied his expertise and commitment to many of the most critical areas of public policy. He has become one of our foremost advocates for protecting America's children and strengthening American families. His knowledge of military issues and his leadership on the Armed Forces Committee will be difficult to replace. Of particular note is his Project for American Renewal, because it speaks to both Dan's personal convictions and his legislative innovation. With this project--a set of 19 legislative proposals--he has succeeded in articulating a coherent philosophy of compassionate conservatism. Senator Coats understands that the limits of government do not limit our responsibilities to each other as citizens of a great nation. His project promotes volunteerism, charitable giving, personal responsibility, and the cohesiveness of communities. His proposal embodies both Senator Coat's insightful reading of modern American social conditions and his optimism for our future. I know that Senator Coats will continue to be an eloquent spokesman for the Project for American Renewal as he returns to private life. I am especially sad to see Senator Coats leave because he has been an outstanding partner. Ever since he arrived in the Senate in 1989, he and I have operated a unique joint office arrangement in Indiana designed to maximize our efforts on behalf of Hoosiers. By combining our resources, we have been able to provide better service at less expense to the citizens of Indiana. Many Senate colleagues over the years have been surprised when they learn that we share office space and staffs in Indiana. They understand the daunting challenges of combining the staffs of two independent- minded Senators with distinct responsibilities and committee assignments. But our Hoosier partnership has been strong and supportive, for which I am deeply appreciative. Senator Coats leaves the Senate after 10 years having established a legion of friendships and a legacy of achievement and integrity. The Senate will miss his expertise, his hard work, his thoughtful reflection, and his talent for innovation. I am confident that Dan will continue to serve the public in the many challenges that lie ahead of him. I wish Dan and Marcia Coats all the best as they move on to these new adventures. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will vote for the 1999 agriculture appropriations conference report. Unfortunately, several unwise provisions have been added since this bill passed the Senate. The cumulative weight of these mistaken policies does not outweigh the many good things in the bill, but is still reason for substantial concern. The bill is commendable in many ways. The conferees wisely rejected efforts to increase price support loan rates. Instead, they expanded disaster assistance from $500 million in the Senate bill to $2.35 billion. This aid will benefit farmers with 1998 losses as well as producers in some regions who have suffered several consecutive years of loss because of weather or disease. The bill also provides $1.65 billion in market loss payments to farmers. These payments provide income support without doing violence to the basic structure of the 1996 FAIR Act. In preserving the FAIR Act's ``freedom to farm,'' the market loss payments are clearly superior to the higher loan rates preferred by our Democratic colleagues. Raising loan rates, according to the non-partisan Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, would cause more production, higher surplus stocks and lower prices and incomes in future years. Even though higher loan rates might raise prices in the short term, they would have deleterious effects that would plague U.S. agriculture for years to come. Other parts of the bill deserve praise. The conferees adopted a biodiesel provision in the Senate bill which I sponsored along with other Senators. Encouraging the use of biodiesel will advance, in a small way, the neglected cause of energy self-sufficiency and renewability. The conference report will also facilitate an increase in overseas food assistance through Food for Progress. I also commend the conferees for adopting a regulatory standstill that will restore legal certainty to swap transactions. This standstill will allow the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to take necessary actions in a financial emergency, as well enforcement actions. It leaves regulators free to act prudently. However, the provision will ensure that the President's Working Group on Financial Markets has an opportunity to advance its current study of the appropriate regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, a study I asked the working group to begin back in July. The turbulence in financial markets during recent weeks should finally convince everyone of the need to expedite this study. The standstill also allows crucial decisions about OTC derivatives to be made, as they should be, in Congress. Restoring legal certainty to swaps will also help to calm markets: In a volatile period, the last thing markets need to deal with is the threat of valid contracts becoming unenforceable. I commend Senator Cochran for his sponsorship of this provision, which Congressman Bob Smith and I proposed. Unfortunately, the conference report has a number of undesirable provisions. Most regrettably, this conference report adopts a House provision to deny funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. It is difficult to understand why this initiative, which passed both Houses of Congress by overwhelming margins earlier this year, was neglected when many less urgent--and more parochial--research items were funded. The initiative's competitive grants and carefully chosen priorities represent the direction in which federal research funding should go. To deny funding for research that will help us feed future generations is unconscionable. The conference report has other flaws. It adopts new loan programs for honey and mohair which were not contained in either bill. Programs for these commodities were abolished only a few years ago. The conference report also adopts language from the House bill which will delay the reform of milk marketing orders by six months. Such a delay is doubly unfortunate since the Secretary of Agriculture is already proposing only half-measures to reform this antiquated and byzantine system. The report's statement of managers contains statements about the sugar program which, though not legally binding, would negate a provision of the FAIR Act if they were taken seriously by the Department of Agriculture. The managers state, in effect, that the one- cent-per-pound penalty assessed on forfeited sugar should not be considered an effective reduction in the support price of sugar, especially for purposes of determining the tariff rate quota for imports. But that was, of course, precisely the intent and effect of this provision. The logical result of a one-cent penalty is to reduce by that amount the price at which a sugar processor would be indifferent to forfeiture or a market sale. It is instructive to read comments on the floor of the House, during debate on the FAIR Act by a strong advocate of the sugar program, former Congressman E de la Garza. The former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee said that the FAIR Act's sugar section ``effectively reduces the loan rate by 1 cent and ensures an increase in foreign imports.'' The conference report also reverses one recent reform of the catastrophic crop insurance program. Not only does the conference report allow multi-million dollar operations to continue buying catastrophic coverage for as little as $60, rather than a small percentage of crop value. It also extends this provision into the future, something that is simply not appropriate in a one-year appropriation bill. Finally, funding was cut for environmental assistance that mitigates non-point source pollution--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Like the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, EQIP is funded through mandatory accounts that are under the jurisdiction of authorizing, not appropriating, committees. Even after listing disappointing actions, I have chosen to highlight the positive achievements in this bill and other recent bills and enacted statutes in which Republicans have shown their ability to assist farmers in troubled times. Under the Republican FAIR Act, loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains for 1998 crops will total $4.2 billion. Most of this amount is not counted in the most recent Administration estimates of net farm income. This summer, Republicans led the way in passing a bill to augment farm cash flow by speeding up 1999 ``freedom to farm'' payments. Now, Republicans are asking the President to join in a $4 billion cash infusion into the farm economy--$2.35 billion in disaster assistance and $1.65 billion in market loss payments. These Republican initiatives will lift 1998 net farm income to near the 1997 level and above the average level of the 1990s. Without a doubt, many producers are under severe stress. Not every operation will survive. Like most other commodity prices, farm prices are depressed because of the shock waves sweeping through the world economy. In such trying times, Republicans have responded with practical assistance rather than ideological demagoguery. We should send this conference report to the President, and he should sign it promptly.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I submit a resolution calling for free and transparent presidential elections in the African country of Gabon. A similar measure was introduced in the House of Representatives, and I applaud the work of those Members of the House who are bringing attention to democratic development in this democracy. This resolution expresses support for the promotion of transparent elections at a crucial time in Gabon's political development. Although ostensibly a democracy since 1961, Gabon has been ruled by the same individual--Omar Bongo--since 1967. In 1968, President Bongo declared Gabon a one-party state and has since then won four consecutive presidential elections. A political easing in 1990 led to the strengthening of individual rights and the establishment of multi-party elections. However, there have been reports that disorganization and a lack of transparency marred President Bongo's most recent election in December 1993. According to the Freedom House Survey of the World Freedom, Bongo was declared the winner before many voters were counted and after a campaign that included extensive use of state resources and state media. Further, widespread irregularities were reported by the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which served as observers during the Gabonese presidential and legislative elections in 1993. The electoral victory by President Bongo led to several months of civil unrest and violent repression. Some observers in Gabon believe more civil unrest will occur if the presidential elections this December are considered illegitimate. A free and fair electoral system would further democracy and stability in Gabon and set an example for other African nations. Mr. President, this resolution calls on the Gabonese government to take measures to help ensure credible presidential elections. The measure calls on the government to invite IFES, the NDI, the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for Democracy or other appropriate non-governmental organizations to aid or observe the December 1998 Gabonese presidential elections. The resolution also urges the United States and the international community to offer assistance for fair elections in Gabon and to encourage movement toward a stable democracy. Gabon is at a turning point. It enjoys a per capita income of $4,700, a high literacy rate (69 percent), and a billion dollar oil industry. The United States Senate would be aiding Gabon in the establishment of a stronger democracy that can help bring stability to a volatile region of Africa. I urge my colleagues to consider the benefits of free and fair elections in Gabon and to support this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Thursday, October 1, 1998, immediately following the first roll-call vote of the Senate in the President's Room of the Capitol. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark up the nomination of Michael Reyna to be a member of the Farm Credit Administration Board and to mark up the USDA Information Technology Reform and Year 2000 Compliance Act (S. 2116).