Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Drazek, a distinguished public servant, who is retiring from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Paul has served as the Special Assistant for International Affairs to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman for the past three and one-half years. Spending the past twenty-five years in international trade, both in government and the private sector, Paul has advanced agricultural trade policy and opened important and essential new markets to America's farmers and ranchers. Paul Drazek came by his love for agriculture naturally, with both of his grandparents running farms in upstate New York. At an early age he chose to use his intellect and energies to help one of our most export dependant industries find and expand market opportunities. To prepare him for his life's mission, Paul furthered his knowledge in agriculture by receiving a degree in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of Maryland. Mr. Drazek began his career with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service, serving fourteen years as a trade policy and marketing specialist. During that time he served four years as an agricultural negotiator for the U.S. delegation to the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, and as the Agricultural Attache in our Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico. Prior to joining the Department of Agriculture as Special Assistant to the Secretary, Mr. Drazek served as Director of Government Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation for ten years. He specialized in international affairs and legislative issues affecting U.S. agricultural trade. In that capacity, Mr. Drazek gained a familiarity with the political and economic sensitivities that shape farm and trade policies around the world. He also provided essential private sector input to the Uruguay Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Paul has spent the last three years at the U.S. Department of Agriculture representing American agricultural interests overseas opening and expanding new markets for our farmers and ranchers. Making progress in international trade policy is a formidable challenge in this dynamic global economy. Paul's unwavering dedication and commitment to bringing prosperity to the world through trade and economic interdependence will pay dividends for our nation well into the future. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute and say thank you to Paul Drazek, and I wish him, his wife Sue and their two sons, Keith and Greg, the best in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine forestry issues. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, by request, to modify the overtime pay for meat inspectors who are veterinarians. Senator Harkin, the ranking minority member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has joined as a cosponsor. This legislation was transmitted to Congress by the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this year. As drafted, the bill would provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to pay Food Safety and Inspection Service employees, working in plants subject to federal meat or poultry inspection, for overtime and holiday work at rates determined by the Secretary. Due to an anomaly in current law, meat inspectors who are veterinarians receive lower pay for overtime hours than they receive for regular hours. These veterinarians are seeking true overtime pay of 1\1/2\ times their hourly rate without a cap on the rate. While the Federal Meat Inspection Act allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide overtime pay at rates determined by USDA, the Poultry Products Inspection Act does not provide this authority. The legislation introduced today would allow USDA to pay overtime for veterinarians at rates determined by USDA. Clearly an inequity exists for veterinarians who work overtime. I am pleased to introduce this legislation at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues about this legislation and will seek opportunities to move this bill through the legislative process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a copy of the transmittal letter from the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2286, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. The child nutrition programs have been critically important in helping meet the nutritional needs of our children. The bill before us, which was unanimously reported out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, is a bipartisan effort to reauthorize and improve these successful programs. Nutrition programs in the Congress have a long history of bipartisan support and cooperation and I am pleased to report that this bill is no exception. As an Indianapolis school board member and the city's mayor in the 1960's and 1970's, I saw firsthand the need to provide nutritional assistance to children. Since that time, the child nutrition programs have changed in many ways. Although the programs may need some fine tuning, today's programs have been successful in ensuring that our nation's children have access to nutritious foods, providing a critical nutrition safety net. In 1997, approximately 89,000 schools enrolling 46 million children participated in the National School Lunch program. Although participation in the school breakfast program is not as large as that in the school lunch program, it has continued to grow. Since 1994, school breakfast participation has increased about 13 percent so that now over 70 percent of schools operating a school lunch program also operate a school breakfast program. The WIC program, which provides nutritious foods and other support to lower-income infants and children (up to age 5), and pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, has been successful at reducing the number of low-birth-weight babies. Its success has led to strong support over the years. In 1997, average monthly WIC participation was 7.4 million persons. In many states, the program has reached the long sought after goal of full funding. The bill before us makes improvements to the child nutrition programs. Recently we have seen reports on fraud and abuse in the WIC and Child and Adult Care Food Programs. S. 2286 strengthens the anti- fraud provisions in both programs. The bill requires WIC recipients to be physically present when being certified or recertified for the program. The bill also requires that recipients provide documentation of their income to prove that they are in fact eligible to participate in the program. The legislation cracks down on fraudulent vendors participating in the WIC program. Under most circumstances, WIC vendors who are convicted of trafficking will be permanently disqualified unless it can be proven that the disqualification will cause undue hardship for WIC recipients. In the Child and Adult Care Food Program, State agencies will be required to visit child care sites prior to approving participation by a provider. The bill also makes amendments to streamline school food service operations. Specifically, S. 2286 allows schools to operate after- school snack programs through the National School Lunch Program rather than separately through the Child and Adult Care Food Program. Without this change, those schools choosing to operate an after-school program, along with the school lunch program, would have to submit paperwork for two separate programs. Streamlining these operations will free up precious time so that school food service personnel can better serve our nation's children. The bill also improves access, for low-income children up to age 18, to the after-school snack and the summer food service programs. The bill creates a new universal school breakfast pilot program that will evaluate the effect of providing free breakfasts to elementary school children, regardless of income, on school performance and dietary intake. The new spending in this bill is fully offset by rounding down reimbursement rates to the nearest whole cent for meals served by schools and child care centers. Finally, the bill reauthorizes the child nutrition programs through fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, S. 2286 was unanimously reported out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on June 25, 1998. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, thus ensuring that our nation's children continue to have access to these important programs.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. That, Mr. President, is the basic problem with the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I simply point out that the basic and largest farm organizations in America have spotted this and they wrote to me on September 11. The organizations that have written and signed this letter are: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, National Broiler Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council and the National Turkey Federation--very sizable groups, covering general agriculture, as well as specific livestock and poultry situations. They say: Dear Chairman Lugar: As the largest market for feed grains and soybean meal, the livestock and poultry producers are concerned over the debate to change the farm program's non- recourse loan rate structure. While we empathize with the market situation faced by feed grain farmers, we urge you to consider the very serious potential impact that changes in loan rates could have on all users of feed grains. With the export market being so vitally important to American agriculture, it is necessary to ensure that changes in government policy not put animal agriculture at a competitive disadvantage. Historically, non-recourse loan rates that do not reflect market conditions have proven to affect producers' marketing decisions, which in turn have led to government surpluses that negatively pressure market price recovery. At a time when all of agriculture is facing depressed marketing conditions and export losses, we respectfully request that the Committee examine alternative policy initiatives to address low price conditions and help restore profitability to farmers and livestock and poultry producers. I make that letter available, Mr. President, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. I appreciate his sincerity, scholarship, research, and his passion, but the solution that he offers, in my judgment, is the wrong one. Republicans and Democrats are concerned about the financial stress in the farm sector. It is substantial. We have worked together on many initiatives aimed at strengthening the long-run health of our farm and ranch economy. There is, unfortunately, no single magic bullet that will make all of our farmers prosperous. But several constructive steps have been taken. I will explain later why raising loan rate caps would be unwise, but first it is appropriate to mention a few of the constructive steps that farm organizations have suggested would help American agriculture. Nearly all farm groups strongly support giving the President fast- track negotiating authority. The Senate Finance Committee has reported, in fact, a comprehensive trade bill containing a renewal of fast track. The majority leader, Senator Lott, intends that the Senate act upon that bill in this session. Our House colleagues have also pledged to act on fast-track legislation. Madam President, I start with that point because, very clearly, we must give the President fast-track authority. By that I mean the ability to submit to the Senate, on an up-or-down basis, a trade treaty negotiated with others, and in the case of the World Trade Organization negotiations next year, over 100 countries. If there is not the ability to deal with that legislation or that treaty on an up-or-down basis-- and the normal course of the Senate would be to offer amendments--then other nations will feel free to offer amendments and the negotiations will founder. Madam President, I mention fast-track authority, and so do most farm groups, first because the export side of our farm business is the growth side. As a matter of fact, in recent years most Americans must realize that about a third of all we produce on our farms has been exported. That is a very large part of demand. The current crisis on the farm is of two origins. One is bad weather in some sections of our country and, in some cases, bad weather for several years running. As we have heard testimony from the distinguished Senators from South Dakota and North Dakota, parts of their States have reported conditions impossible for 4 years to get a crop. We have noticed very considerable drought this year in Texas, in Oklahoma, and in Georgia. And the Senate has acted appropriately. When the appropriations bill came before the Senate, the agriculture appropriations bill--and it was managed very adroitly by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran--$500 million of so-called indemnity payments were set aside, and that amount of money is in a conference between the House and the Senate now. The thrust of the indemnity payments was to recognize that although we are inexact in knowing exactly what damages should be assessed, there has been a great deal of pain and a formula must be worked out. That would be helpful to those farmers in those States and those regions that have had extraordinarily bad luck from the weather. Farming is always a situation of potential bad luck from the weather. No farm in this country is immune from those natural difficulties. That is a part of the excitement, risk, and the reward situation. Nevertheless, the Senate reacted appropriately, in my judgment, and now in conference a discussion about a half billion dollars of indemnity payments is proceeding. The other reason that a farm crisis has occurred is that the Malaysian economy, the Thai economy, the South Korean economy, and the Indonesian economy all went into disastrous tailspins for a variety of reasons. But whatever may have been the reasons, agricultural demand coming from our Asian customers stopped cold. Our best estimates are that about one-third of our exports to Asia, which we would have counted on this year--there is a very strong trend showing year by year gains, and as Asian citizens have had more income and have tried to upgrade their diets, they have become very good customers of farmers in this country. In any event, about a third of that demand is gone, and a third of all of our exports were headed to Asia. That means that roughly 10 percent of the entire demand for agricultural products in this country has vanished--vanished literally overnight. That has had a devastating impact, obviously, when demand heads into the tank at a time in which supply is huge. The supply of our corn crop, for example, is now going to be perhaps the second largest crop in the history of the country, and the soybean crop is the largest ever. Wheat farmers have already been heard from, and their pain has been felt. That registers both in the indemnity payment situation as well as a number of steps that the Senate and House have taken, including, as you will recall, an extraordinary debate on the Glenn amendment on Pakistan and India. The Glenn amendment required sanctions on both of those countries after they both tested nuclear weapons. But the Senate and the House voted rapidly to exempt Pakistan from that situation with regard to wheat so that an auction going on in Pakistan could continue, and, as a matter of fact, Pakistan bought, apparently, about 100 thousand metric tons bushels of wheat from the United States due to that extraordinary action. We had been conscious of the lack of demand for wheat and we are conscious of that lack of demand for corn and for soybeans. As the distinguished Senator from Wyoming who preceded me on the floor pointed out, American agriculture is not entirely grain. It is not entirely vegetables or fruits. It includes livestock. Of course, one of the interesting aspects of agriculture is that as we dwell upon the price of feed grains, it has the worst effect on the cost of raising cattle or raising hogs. There are many farmers who have productions that include both livestock and grain. Many do so deliberately so that they have hedges either way. But, in any event, in the totality of American agriculture, the important point this year is weather and Asia. Worse still is that the Asian situation was not contained there. The Asian problems may have been precipitated or extended by the fact that the world appears to be in the throes of a deflationary spiral, not only for agricultural commodities, but also for metals, minerals and for oil. All of these situations have been in what could be called a deflationary mode. The world has not seen this type of phenomenon for a half a century. It is not clear who the winners and losers are from deflation. There are many of us anecdotically going to a filling station to fill up a tank who rejoice in the fact that sometimes you can buy a gallon of gasoline for less than $1 these days. There is not a great hue and cry on the part of the public to raise the price of gasoline to $1.20 or $1.50. As a matter of fact, we pocket the change without commenting and are simply pleased that some nice things come along in life unexpectedly. But, if you were in fact a Nigerian, a Venezuelan, or even a Russian, and you saw that a large portion of the income of your country comes from oil and that income has gone down precipitously, or if you were any country in the world that gained most of its hard currency and export from mineral extraction, you would find a first-class recession on your hands. That has compounded the problem, obviously, for many of the Asian countries, as well as the increasing number of difficulties in our own hemisphere. It is not clear, Madam President, where the fallout will end with regard to so-called developing countries and others that have currency crises. But each of these weaken export demand from the United States for agricultural products and increasingly for other manufactured products as well. We need to recognize that. There are speeches every year about shortfalls in prices. Some of these shortfalls occur every year as we approach our harvest and the market tries to sort out where the lows are going to be and a certain amount of speculation occurs. This time the real fear is that, given the harvest woes, the bounce back may not be very substantial if there is not somewhere the prospect that we are going to have sales. I noted in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, at least that day-- corn went down and beans went down. The problem pointed to by traders was that the export markets still looked weak. The article commented that wheat prospects looked somewhat better in the export markets--but not for corn and not for beans. That is a problem with which we are going to have to deal. That is why, Madam President, I pointed out that in the World Trade Organization meeting next year we must have fast-track authority. It is essential if we are to expand substantially our export markets, which we must do if demand is to increase and if prices are to go up. Let me point out that farm groups also strongly support International Monetary Fund funding and reform. They know that we have to deal with the Asian demand, the potential for declining demand in Latin America, and restoring IMF funding. Madam President, the debates upon IMF have been hot and heavy on this floor, and in the committees. That has been true in the other body. Clearly, a number of Senators pointed out that the IMF may not have given the best prescriptions for a healthy return in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Korea; that the IMF is far too opaque in terms of its deals; needs to be less secretive; that in fact prescriptions of raising taxes and lowering spending do not always work in economies and may not have been a realistic solution for Russia during the several times IMF money was given to that country. So, as a result, the Congress has not decided yet IMF funding. But, as I have pointed out, it is a very crucial situation. As a matter of fact, it is essential that we act in that area as well as the fast-track authority--two votes which leadership has promised. Agricultural groups want to maintain the viability of crop insurance and to improve it. In the debate today, considerable attention has been given to one of the failings of crop insurance. This failing is that should crop failure occur for several years, the producer's acreage production history falls, and his insurance premiums increase. We will have to reform crop insurance. But I would simply point out that there are a good number of debates, depending upon the standpoint of the observers, as to how that is to be done. For example, should there be a national premium for all farmers in all States and all locations regardless of risk that might be involved? Or should there be a premium based upon risk; upon the actuarial figures that show the history of a particular region or a particular crop? What should be the exposure of the taxpayers to the support of the insurance companies? We will need to face those problems of multicrop failures and actuarial soundness. There is currently a subsidy to the companies so that crop insurance will be provided universally, and, yet, there will be debates among Senators who are not in the agriculture business as to why this particular type of insurance is subsidized. But this year the Senate and the House--and the President by signing legislation as an amendment to the agricultural research bill--went a long way to stabilizing the situation for the next 5 years so that farmers would have a pretty good idea of the lay of the land, and so would the insurance providers. That was critically important. Madam President, part of our debate today on how agriculture is to be strengthened in the country was addressed in legislation that the Senate and the House passed and the President signed. We went a long way in the same legislation by providing specifically for agricultural research of all sorts, including pure research on those breakthroughs that we need to have if American agriculture is to be the most efficient, to be the lowest cost, and to be in a position to feed the world. I look forward in the Agriculture Committee to substantial hearings and efforts by all parties as we progress into the next session. But for now, we have most farmers in this country covered with some degree of crop insurance. The amount of coverage was the choice of the farmer. I would say from my own experience that I had to make choices with regard to coverage of my corn and soybean crops this year. I could take a chance by having no insurance. That really has been my policy for decades. Or I could assume that perhaps El Nino would not work out so well, or El Nino would come behind it, or there would be other difficulties. I had better be prudent, be certain that I cover certain acres, and guarantee a certain price or outcome. Premiums differ according to the amount of risk that is acceptable. That is what most prudent business people do, in agriculture, outside of agriculture, anywhere. Madam President, a number of farmers in the country apparently were not prudent and did not purchase adequate crop insurance coverage. Maybe they did not adequately understand the program, which means we have a large education job to do. But in any event, crop insurance reform is of the essence. That ought to be a part of our agenda. We have acted to mitigate the effects of economic sanctions on agriculture. Madam President, I wish that the Senate had passed the sanction reform legislation, S. 1413, which I offered as an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill. I believe that would have been a very constructive and hopeful step not only for agriculture but for all of American exporters. I have suggested in that legislation--which is still alive and hopefully will be reconsidered this year or next year-- that there ought to be a systematic way in which our country considers economic sanctions. The President or the Congress ought to state what we are attempting to achieve, what the benchmarks will be for success, and what the costs will be of the sanctions to Americans and to American businesses, in terms of their effect on incomes and jobs. Finally, we ought to review sanctions each year. After 2 years they ought to be sunsetted unless the President or Congress specifically decides that a particular sanction is making a difference in our foreign policy. I proposed this prospectively--that is, for the future--as opposed to revisiting the sanctions of the past, although many Senators have offered bills that touch upon the past or offered sanction waivers to the President. Unhappily, my bill got caught up, in a way, in the problems we have had during the appropriations season. There is not much time and there is much work to do. But in any event, others have proposed sanction reform legislation. I have supported a number of those attempts because they take away roadblocks to exporting, and exporting addresses demand and increases price. Those who have talked eloquently today about price and income need to talk about exports, fast-track authority, and sanctions reform as opposed to policy options to store and overhang supplies for the future. Let me point out, Madam President, that with regard to food there is a special case to be made against sanctions. I have supported such legislation, and I have supported the thought that we ought not to have economic sanctions on food, and that it is an inhumane policy. It is not an effective policy with regard to our foreign policy, and resolving sanctions on food would be of great help to American agriculture and American farmers. We acted with corresponding dispatch in this body, as we did on the wheat sales to Pakistan, by speeding up the 1999 AMTA payments, the Freedom to Farm payments to farmers. This is a very large sum of cash. AMTA payments are made twice. The final 1998 payment for farmers will be made before the end of the fiscal year. But we suggested that beginning October 1, 1999, farmers all over America who need increased cash flow--and we have heard much discussion of that today--could apply for the total AMTA payment for fiscal year 1999. Whether due to an emergency because of weather or because of the catastrophe in Asia, the cash flow could occur without taking out a loan; it is simply cash that the farmer in the program was guaranteed in the farm bill: But in any event, we decided to make that whole sum of about $5.5 billion available, and available promptly, as soon after October 1 as the U.S. Department of Agriculture could work out the administrative details, possibly by October 15. This, I think, is an important point about the current farm bill. It has been suggested--I hope facetiously--by some today that it was the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill as opposed to Freedom to Farm, but most people would say when it comes to the AMTA payments, they like it. They like the thought that for 7 years, if you are in the program, you get a payment, divorced entirely from supply and demand, from the Asian economic crisis, from anything else as a matter of fact. It is a so- called transition from the farm bills of supply control of the past to the market-oriented programs that we have now. Let me just say finally that the Senate, while approving $500 million in disaster aid as a placeholder for conference, it was understood that there may be additional monetary demands placed on the conference. I am not advocating that the sum be increased, but I am acknowledging that Senators from around the country have realized there has been further crop losses and plummeting prices. This legislation that is going to pass as a conference report, and hopefully will be signed by the President. Let me point out, Madam President, that in addition to these very substantial ways of bringing money to farmers and new and enhanced demand, many of us have supported Senator Grassley's farm and ranch risk management proposal and we will work diligently to encourage its inclusion in any new tax legislation this year. I was very pleased to note in the Wall Street Journal today that Congressman Archer, the distinguished chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as he initiates $80 billion of tax cuts, has created an accelerated estate tax exclusion. The $1 million exclusion would commence January 1, 1999. In the hearings we have had before the Senate Ag Committee, there have been two items that real live farmers said we need, we want. One is estate tax relief because it means the family farm really does have some possibility of remaining a family farm as opposed to confiscatory taxes intruding into an estate which is very heavy in real estate, land, livestock, buildings, and often very low in cash. So this is a critical item if you are a family farmer, and I am. This is critical, at least as I take a look at it, from the perspective of all the people I know in Indiana who are involved in family farming. This is real change in the economic aspects for this year and for many years for the continuity of farm life as we know it. So that is an important item. The second thing people came in to say is, year by year, the most important thing you could do for us is to give us 100 percent deductibility of our health payments. For the average family farmer farming, say, 500 acres or so in Indiana, that often is an additional $4,000 or $5,000 added to the bottom line. That is a big piece of change. The price effects changes that would come from removing the cap on the loan rate amount to about a 15-cent change, a 15-cent change in the price of a bushel of corn. It takes a lot of additional bushels to add up to $5,000 in the bottom line. A learned study just performed by the Food Agriculture and Policy Research Institute, and commissioned by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, determined this. Congressman Archer is proposing in this bill that we go to 100- percent exemption promptly. That would be true for all Americans, and that is true of the estate tax situation. These are not proposals that are made specifically for farmers. I make that point because, although, quite properly, we are concerned with agricultural America, Senators have other people in their States in addition to farmers. In fact, some States hardly have very many farmers at all. What we are talking about, for example, in raising the loan caps is what the Congressional Budget Office now has estimated as a $5 billion new expenditure. That means that $5 billion would go from all the other taxpayers of the United States to some specific taxpayers who are essentially grain farmers. Few Americans may understand that transaction, that we have today been debating whether to give up $5 billion to grain farmers. But that is a huge transfer of income to a small group. What I think is more constructive is a proposal such as that of the distinguished chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in which he said estate taxes apply to all, including farmers. Farmers are 16 times more likely to pay estate taxes, for example, than other people. But this legislation is not limited to farmers or grain farmers. It is for all of us, and is true of the deductibility of those who pay their medical payments as individual persons. I think it is, likewise, important to point out that Congressman Archer was quite specific on one of his proposals. He suggested that a provision retroactive to January 1, 1998--that is the beginning of this year--would expand to 5 years from 2, the number of tax years farmers can carry back losses. That would be very helpful. A number of us have been talking about income averaging. This really goes at it aggressively, a carry back to 5 years. The Outlook, the publication of the USDA, points out that the last 5 years have been pretty good ones for agricultural America. This year is a downer with the weather and the Asia problems, but this has not always been the case. I can testify from my own farm that the last 5 years have been very, very healthy years. And farmers all over America have repaid debt. And businesses that thrive at the crossroads have thrived with that type of farm income. Let me point out the FAIR Act, the Freedom to Farm Act, did not abolish price support loans. I think that is important to point out. In fairness, several Senators have pointed that out. They have said that there is a marketing loan in the farm bill. They disagree with the rate of that loan, or the price that is to be allowed--$1.89 for corn, for example, and would like for that to be over $2.20. But let me just take an example, once again, from my own operations. I ask the patience of the Senate with regard to that because I do not believe there are many Senators here today who are in farming. There may be a few. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, has long been involved with his family farm that I visited in Iowa. But there are not many. I am one of them, and today, Providence willing, soybeans will be shipped from harvest on my farm into the local elevator in Indianapolis. We will receive the marketing assistance loan at the rate of $5.26, which is being quoted today. I sold beans at an average pretty close to $6.75 to $6.80 over the last year. So $5.26 is well off of that. One could say it is 20 percent, maybe more, maybe less. But I am happy to report that the yield per acre on the Lugar farm on beans looks to me to be way up. I think that is probably important, too. As a matter of fact, the cost per bushel will be down if the number of beans coming up is up. We have heard suggestions today that you have almost an immutable cost out there. It simply cannot be met by these loan deficiency payments or marketing assistance loans. But I point out, volume still counts. And volume we have this year--a record soybean crop in America. Not just on our farm, that specific location, but all over America; unparalleled number of bushels of beans, maybe only the second in history in terms of corn. So before all the dire predictions are visited, one has to take a look at some actual situations, some actual farmers who have some beans and have some corn. I point out the Freedom to Farm Act has not gotten into the loan deficiency payment until this year, and it is because low prices have kicked it in. But it would appear that this is going to be an additional $2 or $3 billion for grain farmers this year. I pointed out earlier that over $5 billion is kicking in early in the AMTA payments for cash flow purposes, an additional $2 or $3 billion in this LDP program, and at least $500 million in an indemnity payment in regard to the weather. The taxpayers of this country have not been grudging when it has come to trying to meet agricultural pain and difficulty this year. As a matter of fact they have been very generous. And farmers are saying we do not really want charity, we want sales, we want marketing, we want exports. Give us at least those tools in fast- track authority in the IMF, in various other facilities. Give us taxation changes so as individuals who have to pay our own health insurance, we get the benefit of the deduction which in some strange way has been denied us. That is not the case in the industrial sector. Give us tax relief in terms of carry-back provisions so we can average out over the good years, and save the taxes. Give us estate tax relief. Let me just point out, we are not going to see, in my judgment, an end to the Asian crisis, the Russian crisis, or others, overnight. But we can exacerbate the problem inadvertently by doing the wrong thing. Higher loan rates have instant appeal--and I think that is obvious from the argumentation given here earlier today. But history shows they have long-term effects that are undesirable. A higher loan rate inevitably stimulates more production than the market can absorb. That is a very big point, Madam President, because, as a matter of fact, lower prices currently are very likely to send exactly different signals; namely, do not plant as much of those things in which you do not do well. There will be marginal changes. There are some farm operations geared up to plant a particular crop every year come hell or high water. There is no need for market signals, that is what the farm does. The question is, Can you lower costs so that you become profitable and efficient over the years? Most farmers have lowered costs. That is why we are the lowest cost producers in the world and why we are bound to be good when we export. But at the same time, the higher loan rate, by stimulating more production, will lead to a surplus and, thus, lower prices in the future, not higher prices. This amendment is clearly a short-term stimulus. If the projections of a $5 billion cost for taking off the loan cap is correct, $5 billion is going fairly immediately from some taxpayers in America to grain farmers, essentially. That will increase the income but, Madam President, the following year, the income comes down. Let me point out that a study that was completed for my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, points this out. Senator Harkin approached well-known researchers at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. They pointed out, as we might anticipate, that if, in fact, the amendment before us were to be adopted, the average price of corn for the current year, 1998-1999, would increase 10 cents a bushel. That would be the average increase for that corn this year--10 cents. Wheat prices would increase 15 cents and soybean prices 6 cents. But, unfortunately, they point out that the aftermath also indicates that in the following year, prices go down. Corn prices go down by 6 cents and wheat prices go down by 10 cents below the baseline. Soybean prices, would be relatively flat, they say. Essentially, they evaluate the immediate income surge at about $4.56 billion, pretty close to the $5 billion estimated by CBO. They point out the obvious: if you have $5 billion injected into this situation averaged over 2 or 3 years, you still have more money than you had when the $5 billion went in. But they point out that absent a constant stream of this kind of activity--that is unleashing the caps, with continual injections of cash--that prices come down and so does overall income. (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, these agencies, including the American Farm Bureau and the sheep, broiler, beef and pork producers have made the essential point with regard to the removing of the cap on the marketing loans. Inevitably, the signals go out and the supplies increase. Even under the marketing loan concept, in which it is unlikely that there will be the buildup of forfeitures and the buildup of governmental storage that characterized previous situations, there still is a glut on the market. The surplus does not disappear. Price signals were out there for a purpose. They indicated who wanted to utilize the commodity, who could utilize the commodity. Tragically, in this country, we are utilizing commodities about as well as we are going to. The up-side potential that we talked about today on the export side is the difference. That is where the thrust has to occur. To have a domestic transfer of income simply hides the problem; it doesn't market the commodities. The costs do not decrease for farmers in the field, although much that we have done this year in terms of our research bill might assist people in bringing about lower costs. I commend all of my colleagues who have spoken to this issue today for their concern. They have spoken with sincerity. They are advocates of producers in their States and of American agriculture generally. Many are Members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and participate regularly in trying to think along with the majority and minority how we can deal with these problems. But, Mr. President, we have debated, as was pointed out earlier by various Senators, this issue on at least a couple of occasions. On one occasion, the distinguished Senator from Montana, who is on the floor now, discussed a lengthening of payment of the loan rate. He did not press for a vote on that occasion. But then on the appropriations bill, an amendment was offered by the distinguished minority leader of the Senate, Senator Daschle, that had very similar characteristics with regard to the caps on the loan rate. The Senate voted 56 to 43 after extensive debate that took, as I recall, the better part of 4 hours on that occasion. We have revisited the issue for another 4 hours this afternoon, and it is probably worthy of considerably more attention. I suspect the problem is that the Senate is also attempting to deal with the Interior appropriations bill in addition to problems of agriculture. It will not be a good idea to adopt this amendment. I have listened carefully to others who have spoken. But we ought to defeat this amendment. Therefore, Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their sincerity, but after a consultation with and on behalf of the majority leader I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. The vote, I understand, Mr. President, will occur after the first vote that is now set for 5:30; is that correct?

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Leroy ``Lee'' Lochmann, the recently retired President and CEO of ConAgra's Refrigerated Foods Companies. Over a forty-five-year career in the meat and poultry industry, Lee's leadership skills have made him a pioneer in the food business. In 1953, Lee joined Swift and Company directly out of high school, working on the line in an East St. Louis meat packing plant. From these early years, Lee moved through numerous management positions, finally ascending to key executive ranks. He ultimately became President of Swift and Company, the first of many--and increasingly large--meat and poultry companies that Lee would eventually run. In addition, along the way, Lee accumulated two university degrees and served his country in the military for three years. Lee's hardworking beginnings have given him a unique perspective as a food industry leader and have allowed him to effectively manage his employees, from the most junior line worker to the most senior corporate manager. At ConAgra, one of the world's largest food companies, Lee used his experience to expand its diversified Refrigerated Foods Companies. As president, CEO and member of the Office of the Chairman, Lee oversaw multibillion dollar businesses, provided a secure place of employment for thousands of hard-working employees and wonderful food products for American consumers. While consumers would not recognize the name of Lochmann, the products that he produced are an integral part of our daily diets: Armour hot dogs, Healthy Choice luncheon meats, Butterball turkeys, Swift Premium bacon and Eckrich sausages. Mr. President, many ConAgra employees are constituents of mine in Indiana, and we know first-hand the significant role the company plays in my state's economy and our country's agricultural industries. Lee was not only a leader at ConAgra, he was an industry trader, as well. A long term Director of the American Meat Institute, Lee's peers paid this fine gentleman a well-deserved tribute by electing him Chairman of the industry's National Trade Association in 1992. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Lee Lochmann, and I wish him, his wife Agnes and their family the best in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to combat fraud and waste in the food stamp program--overpayments resulting from individuals receiving benefits in two or more states at the same time. This bill is the result of the last in a series of General Accounting Office studies that I requested dealing with groups of ineligible people receiving food stamps. In the report being released today, GAO identifies 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. Earlier this year, 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. The Agriculture Committee reported a bill to match food stamp files with Social Security Administration data. My bill will require the United States Department of Agriculture to conduct a feasibility 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. This suggests that the problem is not confined to USDA. My bill would direct the USDA to work in consultation with other agencies to develop a systematic approach to developing a national database. 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. The welfare bill also did not give states the tools to implement other important provisions. To effectively implement the TANF and food stamp time limits, some type of national tracking system is necessary. Therefore, this bill directs the agencies involved to address a broader range of issues than simply the receipt of benefits in different states at the same time. HHS has already fulfilled a congressional mandate to look into some of these issues, so I expect the participants in this new study to use the completed project 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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise before you today to recognize two excellent high school teachers who have been chosen by the National Geographic Society to represent the State of Indiana in the promotion of Geography Awareness Week. I wish to commend Christine Bullock of Walkerton, Indiana and Kevin Leineweber of Lafayette, Indiana for their efforts in advancing Geography Awareness Week throughout Indiana. Ms. Bullock and Mr. Leineweber visited our nation's capital for three weeks this summer to study methods for improving geographic education in our schools. They have set themselves apart as Hoosier leaders who understand that geography should be an intregal part of American education. Geography offers a unique perspective in understanding ourselves, our relationship to the Earth and its resources and our interdependence with other people of the world. With an ever expanding global network of trading partners, the United States must look to its future entrepreneurs and citizens to have an understanding of the world and its geography in order to promote American interests abroad. I urge all teachers to stress to their students the importance of geography, and I appeal to students to study geography and its effects on the makeup of our global societies. I extend my congratulations to Ms. Bullock and Mr. Leineweber for recognizing the importance of geography and working toward the development of geographic knowledge in our communities and schools.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to combat fraud and waste in the food stamp program--overpayments resulting from individuals receiving benefits in two or more states at the same time. This bill is the result of the last in a series of General Accounting Office studies that I requested dealing with groups of ineligible people receiving food stamps. In the report being released today, GAO identifies 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. Earlier this year, 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. The Agriculture Committee reported a bill to match food stamp files with Social Security Administration data. My bill will require the United States Department of Agriculture to conduct a feasibility 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. This suggests that the problem is not confined to USDA. My bill would direct the USDA to work in consultation with other agencies to develop a systematic approach to developing a national database. 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. The welfare bill also did not give states the tools to implement other important provisions. To effectively implement the TANF and food stamp time limits, some type of national tracking system is necessary. Therefore, this bill directs the agencies involved to address a broader range of issues than simply the receipt of benefits in different states at the same time. HHS has already fulfilled a congressional mandate to look into some of these issues, so I expect the participants in this new study to use the completed project 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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which will help the dairy industry manage price volatility. The bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a pilot program under which milk producers and cooperatives will be permitted to enter into forward price contracts with milk handlers. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to consolidate the federal milk marketing orders by April 1999, to phase out the dairy price support program by January 1, 2000, and replace it with a recourse loan program for commercial dairy processors by January 1, 2000, and authorizes reforms in the federal milk marketing order system. Movement toward a more market-oriented dairy industry was supported on a bipartisan basis in the House and Senate. At a July 29, 1997, Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, witnesses testified that price volatility exists in the dairy industry as it does for other agricultural commodities. However, in the case of the dairy industry, the tools to manage price risk are less developed and the knowledge of how to use risk management techniques is below that of most other food commodities. On January 2, 1998, and again on February 25, 1998, I wrote Secretary of Agriculture Glickman recommend modification of federal milk marketing orders to permit proprietary handlers of milk to offer dairy producers forward contracts for milk. The department interprets the applicable statute as prohibiting the offering of forward contracts because the contracts would violate a requirement to pay producers a minimum price. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a three-year pilot program for forward pricing of milk. Under the program, milk handlers and producers could voluntarily enter into fixed price contracts for specific volume of milk for an agreed upon period of time. It is intended that the Secretary of Agriculture review the forward pricing contracts to ensure that the contracts are consistent with all existing fair agricultural trade practices. Mr. President, it is important that dairy producers and processors be afforded risk management tools. I believe this legislation will assist in that effort and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 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 will meet on Friday, July 31, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to review pending nominations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Thursday, July 30, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in SD-106. The purpose of this meeting will be to review a recent concept release by CFTC on over-the- counter derivatives and related legislation proposed by the Treasury Department, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the SEC.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Wednesday, July 29, 1998, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine USDA consolidation and downsizing efforts. committee on rules and administration

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate your assurances. Mr. President, I would like to made a few additional comments on the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program. For the past 15 years, some 11,000 young students from Germany and the United States have participated in these exchanges. German and American families have hosted these students in their homes and communities and formed enduring friendships and nurturing the ability to see each other through the other's eyes. The earliest of these participants are mature adults now and have assumed responsible positions in their communities. I'm impressed that senior members of the German Government, including Chancellor Kohl and the President of the German Bundestag, Rita Sussmuth are personally involved in the program. Many others have invited American students to work in their offices, invited them into their homes and arranged for specific events on their behalf. Our German counterparts value this program very highly and promote it with enthusiasm. In the end, we should support this program because it is in our interests to do so. It is one of our smallest international exchange programs but it reaps substantial foreign policy benefits. We should be sending more American students to Germany on this program. The German Government wants to increase the number of students they send here. I should add that most of the American students selected for this exchange program are juniors or sophomores in high school. The standards are high. To be eligible, a student must have a 3.0 grade point or better and be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. Once again, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. He has a difficult task of balancing growing and competing demands with increasingly sparse resources. I appreciate his understanding and courtesy and look forward to working with him and the committee to restore funding for the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program (CBYX). improving school safety and fighting school crime

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the chairman and appreciate his explanation. My original intention was to introduce an amendment to restore funding for the CBYX program but do not want to burden the managers with a specific earmark. Could the chairman give assurance that he will do all he can to restore funding for these exchanges. If he does, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy on the Congress- Bundestag Youth Exchange Program (CBYX). I would like to hear his thoughts about German-American student exchanges and the reasons why the bill before us does not include any appropriation for these important exchanges. Let me assert first of all that I am a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the CBYX program that has been in existence now for 15 years. I recall the enthusiasm in the Senate when, in 1983, the late Senator Heinz introduced the bill authorizing this exchange program. Many of us rose to endorse it and the legislation received unanimous support. The legislation was inspired by the events surrounding the critical decision by the German Government to deploy United States Pershing-II missiles in Germany--a decision which, in my judgment accelerated the end of the Cold War. At the time, it became evident that there were fundamental misunderstandings within Germany of United States intentions and equally shallow perceptions about Germany in the United States. The German Government felt the need for correcting misperceptions about the United States most acutely and initiated a process to establish and fund a youth exchange program with the United States. The Congress-Bundestag exchange program that emerged from those efforts was not just another bilateral exchange program. Rather, it has become an essential component of American foreign policy. With the imminent expansion of NATO eastward, it takes on an even more important role in promoting understanding between our two countries. The Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange program was launched jointly in 1983 by the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and has been funded by both governments in roughly equal amounts ever since. Many of us on both sides of the aisle who were in Congress in 1983 spoke passionately in support of these exchanges. Those of us who follow the program closely and meet with the exchange students believe it is an essential component of American foreign policy. Apart from expanding awareness of German and American institutions and culture, the international experiences and increased proficiency in language have become valuable assets in the students' continuing education and community life. One of the unique features of the Congress Bundestag Youth Exchange Program is that the German Government virtually matches our contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis. They try to match the number of students they send to the United States to those we send Germany. They would like to send many more students. When we increase or decrease our funding, they tend to increase or decrease their funding. Thus, if we zero out or decrease funding for this program, the German Government may do the same. In effect, that would be a double hit and a double calamity for United States-German relations. Thousands of young people from Germany and from the United States are able to spend a year in the other country, live with host families and learn about one another. Thousands have become young Ambassadors for their country. They have strengthened our mutual interests. Germany's strategic importance in Europe is self-evident. It enjoys the strongest economy in Europe and has cooperated in expanding both the European Union and NATO toward the East. It is poised to play an even greater role in international peacekeeping, international commerce, and the global economy. Moreover, there are more than 60 million Americans who trace their heritage to German origins, one of the largest, if not the largest, ethnic groups in the United States. Could I ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee what has been the recent funding levels for the Congress-Bundestag Program and if the bill before us eliminates or reduces funding for the Congress- Bundestag program for fiscal year 1999?

Mr. LUGAR. I understand the companion House bill includes funding for this exchange program at about $2 million. Therefore, funding for the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange program for fiscal year 1999 will be an issue in conference. Is it the chairman's intention to restore funds for the CBYX program in conference?

Mr. LUGAR. It is my understanding that this program is a very high priority of the administration and that the President has publicly stated that he wants to increase funding for the Congress-Bundestag Program in fiscal year 2000 to a level at least $2.8 million--an amount substantially above recent levels.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Wednesday, July 22, 1998, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the Y2K computer problem as it relates to agricultural business and other matters. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to permit local school districts 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 must pay or reimburse the costs of their education in American public schools. 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 and bear a tolerable burden there may be no need or desire for 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 will allow local school districts to waive the requirement that foreign students must pay for the cost of their education. The decision to waive or not waive this requirement should be made at the grass roots level, not in Washington and 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. I remain committed to these programs. 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. It would simply allow high school officials to waive the cost of education of high school-level foreign students in order to enroll an exchange student, should they wish to do so. I believe this has been an unintended consequence of IIRIRA. Several cities 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 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 the local public school even though governments and the local school districts agreed to enroll the students. Many school districts prefer 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 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 purposes 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 give an educational opportunity for enrolling international exchange students.