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 Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the current federal crop insurance program and consider improvements to the system.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Senator McCain is correct in his understanding of the agreement reached by our two Committees. While the Agriculture Committee has an interest in both agricultural weather research and freshwater aquaculture, Senator Harkin and I acknowledge the Commerce Committee's concerns and will accommodate them. We will propose during the conference that section 230 and section 211 of the Senate-passed version of S. 1150 be stricken, and that language be inserted in lieu of these sections which only extends the authorization of appropriations for the two statutes through fiscal year 2002, without other changes to the existing laws.

Mr. LUGAR. I would be pleased to join the Senators in a colloquy on this subject.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Israeli membership in a United Nations regional group. I am delighted to join Senator Moynihan in bringing this resolution to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate. Over the years, many in the Congress have risen to comment on the United Nations. Many have been critical or skeptical about the role the Untied Nations can and does play in world affairs. Many have been laudatory as well. There is a division in the Congress about the extent to which the United Nations helps to advance U.S. interests and world peace. Last year, the Congress devoted an enormous amount of time on legislation to pay our arrears to the U.N. and the conditions and reforms which must be met before disbursement of our payments. That legislative effort is still continuing. There are many disagreements about the United Nations and I don't wish to revisit or bridge the gap between these views. But, Mr. President there is an important United Nations issue on which all members of the Congress can agree and that is the resolution we are introducing today. Senator Moynihan and I are joined by nearly forty members of the Senate who believe that an institutional injustice, based on political reasons, has been perpetrated on the state of Israel because it has been denied membership in a U.N. ``regional group.'' On the surface, this denial would appear to be a minor oversight or slight snub of a long-standing member of the United Nations. But, it is much more than that. U.N. regional group membership confers eligibility to serve on the Security Council and other important committees of the United Nations such as the International Court of Justice and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Nominations of members to serve on U.N. committees are made by the regional groups. Israel does not belong to any regional group. Indeed, Israel is the only country in the United Nations that can not claim membership in any regional group. As such, it is ineligible for membership in the influential committees in the U.N. Paradoxically, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya enjoy this privilege denied Israel. As with the United States Congress and most every legislative or deliberative body, much of the real work is performed in committees, councils and other smaller deliberative bodies. To be denied membership in these committees is to be denied the opportunity to influence important decisions and actions of the United Nations. It is unfair and unjust and should be rectified as soon as possible. Israel has not been allowed to join its natural regional group of the Middle East and has expressed interest in joining the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) regional group. The WEOG group includes Western European democracies, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Turkey. The resolution we are introducing today urges the President to help facilitate Israel's membership in an appropriate U.N. regional group. Under current circumstances, an appropriate regional group is most likely to be the WEOG. It further urges the administration to report to the Congress on the steps it has taken to assist Israel's membership in a U.N. regional group and the success or failure of those efforts. Mr. President, I ask that all members take note of this resolution. It seeks to bring full equality to Israel's membership in the United Nations. I am confident that it will be supported by the entire body.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of young Indiana students who have shown great educative achievement. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the winners of the 1997-1998 Eighth Grade Youth Essay Contest which I sponsored in association with the Indiana Farm Bureau and Bank One of Indianapolis. These students have displayed strong writing abilities and have proven themselves to be outstanding young Hoosier scholars. I submit their names for the Congressional Record because they demonstrate the capabilities of today's students and are fine representatives of our Nation. This year, Hoosier students wrote on the theme, ``Hoosier Farmers-- Feeding the World, Protecting the Land.'' Students were encouraged to consider and creatively express the role Hoosier farmers play in feeding the world's population. I ask to have printed in the Record the winning essays of Jamie Ann Boone of Hamilton County and Ben Wicker of Rush County. As state winners of the Youth Essay Contest, these two outstanding students are being recognized on Friday, February 27, 1998 during a visit to our Nation's Capitol. The essays follow: Hoosier Farmers--Feeding the World, Protecting the Land (By Jamie Boone, Hamilton County) The Time: Oct. 10, 2025 The Place: Wayne Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, Planet Earth The Farmer: Jamie Ann Boone, Age 41 All of my crops are being planted and harvested by the use of robotics engineering. Using the latest updated global positioning technology, yield monitors, and variable rate technology I am able to plant, fertilize, water, and harvest my crops from inside my computer control room. This type of precision farming has provided farmers of the 21st century with an abundant amount of information. We are now able to predict yields and verify soil types, balance nutrient levels, and control weed pressures without even leaving our home. Today each farmer feeds himself and 198 other people. Farmers of my parents' day in the 1990's fed 116 people. There are fewer farmers and less farm ground, but due to conservation and technology we are still able to feed the world. No-till practices, resistant seed varieties, lower chemical and insecticide rates that were begun in the 1980's and 1990's have led to the use of all organo-chemicals and new super resistant varieties of 2025. Action taken in the 1990's by my parents and their farm neighbors to protect what little agriculture land that was left has provided for me and two other young farmers to farm Hamilton County's ground. This farm group lobbied to protectively zone all remaining tillable acres in 1998 for farm use only. This was necessary because urban sprawl from Indianapolis was rapidly and uncontrollably eating up farm land. In order to provide for the future food and feed needs of the world, something had to be done. My parents got farmers in our area and then across the nation to take similar action to preserve the land. Today, in 2025, we ship high oil corn, soybeans, oil and meal, tofu beans, canola for oil, and white and yellow corn in large quantities from less ground than ever before. Our Hoosier products go to China, Russia, Japan, India, Europe, Mexico, Egypt and many other countries. Global communication advances make it possible for me to market many of my products directly to global end users. Encouragement from school, teachers, and farm parents kept me involved in agriculture. The reason I'm a farmer today is because of the clubs, 4-H, and FFA activities I got involved in when I was younger. Watching and them helping my parents take care of their ground made me proud to assume their role in feeding the world into the 21st century. Hoosier Farmers--Feeding the World, Protecting the Future (By Ben Wicker, Rush County) Corn and Soybeans growing side by side in the fields, cattle grazing in green pastures with hog bards in the distance . . . Welcome to Indiana! Indiana farmers have been feeding the world for hundreds of years. Early settlers grew only what they needed for their survival. Hoosier farmers have expanded their acres and markets through the years to include domestic and world markets, primarily corn and soybeans. The markets of tomorrow demand specialization. Already, many Hoosier farmers are adapting to this change. In 1997, ten percent of all corn acres had a special trait, like resistance to European corn borer or certain herbicides. It is estimated that those numbers will rise to twenty-five percent in 1998, and fifty percent in 2000. Some of these special traits include high oil or white corn for specific food markets. This technology is linked to high yielding hybrids for more food producing ability. One of the greatest technological advances for agricultural has been Global Positioning Systems (GPS). GPS ensures proper placement of fertilizers, chemicals, and other crop inputs. Farmers have used this technology in conjunction with a combination of no-till, minimum till, and conventional tillage to provide the best protection for Indiana topsoil. Other conservation practices such as grassed waterways and buffer strips along waterways help reduce soil loss to erosion. Indiana is rapidly becoming urbanized. Around the larger cities, land prices are rising, housing developments are spreading, and farm land is being destroyed by development. Indiana farmers have a responsibility to protect and preserve Indiana's prime farmland. The conservation of Indiana's most productive land and the continuation of high yielding traditions are important to the future of Indiana agriculture. If we do not save the land now, how will future generations of Hoosier farmers carry on the tradition of feeding the world? 1997-98 District Winners District 1: Jennifer Claypool, Rajiv Kumar District 2: Brittney Hess, Kit Venderley District 3: Tara Wireman, Russell Trudeau District 4: Candace Northam, Bradley Rice District 5: Kathryn Haselden District 6: Jamie Ann Boone, Andrew Twibell District 7: Courtney Reynolds, Scott Dugan District 8: Mary Jean Word, Ben Wicker District 9: Jessie Borden, Matthew Bender District 10: Chandra Smith, Dusty Daulton 1997-98 County Winners Allen: Zachory Veit, Brittney Hess Cass: Aaron Tribby, Tara Wireman Dearborn: Danny Powell, Elizabeth Sedler Delaware: Andrew Twibell, Katherine Riley Fayette: Mary Jean Word Franklin: Chad Meyer, Kelsey Kaiser Hamilton: Luke Nelson, Jamie Ann Boone Hancock: Justin Christopher Hendricks: Kathryn Haselden Jasper: Bryron Courtright, Kara Kohlhagen Jay: Justin Knapke, Candace Northam Jefferson: Dusty Daulton Lake: Mike Dlugokinski, Megan Kabella LaPorte: Laurie Marsh Marion: Chris Shaw, Rachel Grounds Martin: Courtney Reynolds Newton: Russell Trudeau, Amanda Chamberlan Porter: Rajiv Kumar, Jennifer Claypool Posey: Jacob Eisterhold, Ellen Herrenbruck Rush: Ben Wicker St. Joseph: Keegan Boucek, Megan Bauer Spencer: Crystal Foertsch Steuben: Kit Venderley, Jamie Brunner Sullivan: Scott Dugan, Ash Lynn Thompson Vermillion: Ashley Hughes Vigo: Amy Jackson Wabash: Bradley Rice, Sarah Andersen Warrick: Matthew Bender, Jessie Borden Washington: Jeremy Givens, Chandra Smith Wayne: Christopher Cope Nicholson, Lynn Hamilton Wells: John Stauffer, Lindsay Leas Whitley: Derek Leininger.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 5, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine the Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change and its effect on the agricultural economy.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on February 1, 1998, Lane A. Ralph celebrated his 20th anniversary of service in the Indiana State Office of the United States Senate. In recognition of this milestone achievement, and with deepest appreciation, I commend him. An alumnus of Indiana State University with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science and a Master's of Public Administration, Lane joined my state office staff during my second year of membership in the Senate. In the ensuing years, Lane has worn many hats with unbridled enthusiasm, vast energy and selfless commitment. In 1980, Lane rose to the challenge of serving two senators, as Senator Dan Quayle and I established the only combined state office in the country. When Senator Dan Coats joined the Senate in 1988, Lane continued his selfless commitment to serve both of us, ceaselessly offering sage council, valued continuity and dedication to a shared purpose. Lane has consistently articulated a vision of humane government and has demonstrated a genuine commitment to public service. He has served with humility, compassion and empathy for those in need. As the Director of Projects for the United States Senate State of Indiana Office, Lane has provided leadership with integrity and intelligence. He has developed an extraordinary encyclopedic-knowledge of people, places, facts and issues which affect the quality of life of all Hoosiers. He has cultivated a comprehensive network of contacts in federal, state and local government and among community leaders who value his responsible and credible expertise, as well as his well- reasoned approach to public policy. Lane's leadership in environmental issues is well-known throughout Indiana. He has been a steadfast advocate of soil and water conservation, clean air and water, better forest management and responsible hazardous waste disposal. In his collaborations with Operation Lifesaver, Lane has worked tirelessly to educate Hoosiers in railroad-crossing safety. As an expert in public works issues, he has assisted elected officials, municipal administrators and concerned citizens enhance Indiana's roads, drinking-water systems and planning mechanisms. In his many years of service, Lane has consistently demonstrated a talent for forthrightness and for clarifying the intricacies of complex situations. He cuts to the heart of concerns and issues with a knack for asking key questions. Lane is fairminded and industrious with people from all walks of life, balancing the interests of conflicting parties and affably fostering collaborative partnerships. Apart from his distinguished career of public service, Lane has been a loving and generous partner to his wife, Ruth, throughout their 18 years of marriage. He is a caring and supportive father to his two daughters, Elina and Emily. He is also personally, my trusted and loyal friend. For his honesty, sincerity and integrity, for his dedication to excellence and for his genuine decency, I commend Lane A. Ralph for 20 remarkable years of service.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize those child nutrition provisions expiring in 1998. The child nutrition programs have been critically important in helping meet the nutritional needs of our children. Although not all child nutrition programs need to be reauthorized, this process gives us the opportunity to review all programs under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. As an Indianapolis school board member and the city's mayor in the late 1960's and early 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. Today's programs have been successful in ensuring that our nation's children have access to nutritious foods, providing a critical safety net for children. Although the programs may need some fine tuning, the programs have ensured that America's school children, in a country of abundance, have a chance to eat. This is fundamental and something we must preserve. Some of the larger programs that must be reauthorized include: 1) the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, often referred to as the WIC program; 2) State Administrative Expenses, a program which provides grants to states to help cover general administrative costs associated with child nutrition programs; 3) the WIC Farmers' Market program which allows states and tribal organizations to offer special WIC vouchers to buy fresh produce; 4) the Summer Food Service program which provides reimbursements for meals served to children in summer programs operated in lower-income areas; and 5) the requirement to use certain funds to purchase commodities to maintain commodity assistance for child nutrition programs. In addition, there are a few other expiring provisions that must be reauthorized. This bill extends all expiring programs through 2003. Although it is not necessary to reauthorize the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, we hope to review and improve those programs during this reauthorization process. The child nutrition programs continue to successfully feed our nation's children to help them prepare for the future. 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% so that now over 70% 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. This year as we reauthorize the program, we will look to see if there are ways to make this successful program run even better. Senators Harkin, McConnell and Leahy have joined with me today to introduce this important bill. I wish to stress that this bill is a starting point for debate on child nutrition reauthorization. I am sure that the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee as well as the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee have additional ideas to improve these programs. Nutrition programs in the Congress have a long history of bipartisan support and cooperation and I am certain that we will continue that tradition. I look forward to working with them and other members of the Agriculture Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to craft a thoughtful and sensible bill to reauthorize the child nutrition programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize those child nutrition provisions expiring in 1998. The child nutrition programs have been critically important in helping meet the nutritional needs of our children. Although not all child nutrition programs need to be reauthorized, this process gives us the opportunity to review all programs under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. As an Indianapolis school board member and the city's mayor in the late 1960's and early 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. Today's programs have been successful in ensuring that our nation's children have access to nutritious foods, providing a critical safety net for children. Although the programs may need some fine tuning, the programs have ensured that America's school children, in a country of abundance, have a chance to eat. This is fundamental and something we must preserve. Some of the larger programs that must be reauthorized include: 1) the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, often referred to as the WIC program; 2) State Administrative Expenses, a program which provides grants to states to help cover general administrative costs associated with child nutrition programs; 3) the WIC Farmers' Market program which allows states and tribal organizations to offer special WIC vouchers to buy fresh produce; 4) the Summer Food Service program which provides reimbursements for meals served to children in summer programs operated in lower-income areas; and 5) the requirement to use certain funds to purchase commodities to maintain commodity assistance for child nutrition programs. In addition, there are a few other expiring provisions that must be reauthorized. This bill extends all expiring programs through 2003. Although it is not necessary to reauthorize the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, we hope to review and improve those programs during this reauthorization process. The child nutrition programs continue to successfully feed our nation's children to help them prepare for the future. 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% so that now over 70% 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. This year as we reauthorize the program, we will look to see if there are ways to make this successful program run even better. Senators Harkin, McConnell and Leahy have joined with me today to introduce this important bill. I wish to stress that this bill is a starting point for debate on child nutrition reauthorization. I am sure that the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee as well as the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee have additional ideas to improve these programs. Nutrition programs in the Congress have a long history of bipartisan support and cooperation and I am certain that we will continue that tradition. I look forward to working with them and other members of the Agriculture Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to craft a thoughtful and sensible bill to reauthorize the child nutrition programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for the pending fast-track reauthorization legislation. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I would like to begin by stressing the importance of fast track to U.S. agriculture. In 1996, agricultural exports reached a record $60 billion, but import barriers, export subsidies, and state trading enterprises continue to distort world commodity markets. These distortions put America's farmers and agribusiness operators at a disadvantage. We must reduce these trade barriers and allow our industry to freely supply the world's markets. I ask that a letter in support of fast track from all living Secretaries of Agriculture, dating from President Kennedy's administration, be printed in the Record. Last year, my State of Indiana exported goods totaling $12.1 billion and these exports directly supported 66,000 Hoosier jobs. Current estimates indicate Indiana will achieve a record $13 billion in exports this year. Indiana's exports grew by an extraordinary 75 percent between 1992 and 1996. Since 1993, exports by Indianapolis firms increased 53 percent, South Bend's exports are up by 175 percent and Muncie's export growth leapt 114 percent. Therre Haute firms saw their exports rise 277 percent, the second highest rate of increase in the Nation. Indiana was the eighth largest agricultural exporter in 1996 with over $2 billion in exports. Because export related jobs pay on average more than nonexport related jobs, it is easy to conclude that exporting is a vital component to Indiana's robust economy. The United States must continue to be the leader in knocking down tariff and nontariff trade barriers. This bill is critical to advancing trade liberalization and opening markets for all sectors. Approving fast track is the first step in achieving these goals. Mr. President, I ask that a letter from President Clinton regarding a proposed congressional oversight group be inserted in the Record. I agree with the President that more can be done regarding strengthening the current congressional advisory group. Specifically, for each new trade negotiation the administration would consult with and update a specific congressional oversight group for that particular round of negotiations. The group would provide advice to the U.S. Trade Representative and be charged with general oversight. Second, the U.S. Trade Representative would work with congressional leaders, within 60 days of enactment, to develop guidelines for interaction between Congress and the administration on trade negotiations. The guidelines would address such issues as the timing of written and oral briefings regarding U.S. objectives, the status of the negotiations, the role of the group during actual negotiations, and access to information obtained during negotiations. The United States must be well prepared for the next round of World Trade Organization talks on agriculture in 1999 and the establishment of a congressional oversight group would be a positive beginning for this process. Since 1974, Congress has granted every President fast-track negotiating authority. America's economic future increasingly lies with our ability to sell our goods and services around the globe. Without fast track, the United States will be sidelined in future trade negotiations. Since the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] in 1947, the United States has been the leader in knocking down trade barriers and opening up markets. As we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the GATT, the United States can either be engaged and play an active role in further trade liberalization or allow our competitors to stake claim to a larger portion of world markets. The letters follow: November 3, 1997. Hon. Richard Lugar, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC Hon. Tom Harkin, Ranking member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC Hon. Charles Stenholm, Ranking member, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC Dear Gentlemen: The U.S. food and agricultural system is one of the nation's greatest success stories. American agriculture competitively produces, handles, processes, services, trades and transports food and fiber that the world wants to buy. Agricultural trade has contributed significantly to U.S. farm income, created jobs and strengthened American economic and political interests. For those reasons, agricultural trade has been a top priority for every administration in recent memory. Having served as the Secretaries of Agriculture to Presidents of both political parties, we have witnessed how U.S. agriculture has benefited from trade liberalization made possible by previous fast-track authorities. With the implementation of NAFTA and GATT, U.S. agricultural exports surged another $20 billion in value, hitting an all-time high of $60.3 billion in 1996. U.S. agriculture also has enjoyed a consistent trade surplus, which last year climbed to $27 billion. Our food and agricultural system now is poised to make additional export gains from upcoming trade negotiations. Many developing countries are experiencing economic growth which means rising incomes for their citizens. Food demand is expanding as people upgrade their diets. These consumers will need to rely to a greater degree than ever on world markets, but there is no guarantee that agricultural products grown in the United States may reach them. To assure that, we need to make additional progress lowering trade barriers, eliminating unfair trading practices and constraining domestic subsidies that distort trade. Fast track is the key to unlocking those opportunities. It is the avenue for our negotiators to level the playing field for U.S. farmers and processors to compete. The authorities it conveys can and should be used to help resolve outstanding trade disputes and strengthen the rules of international commerce. Moreover, it should be used as it was in the past-- to exercise U.S. leadership in trade. American agriculture needs to be at the table for the 199 agriculture talks in the World Trade Organization to continue the progress made in the Uruguay Round. In addition, we need to be active in upcoming bilateral negotiations with countries like Chile and for the regional Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation talks. Very simply, fast track is critical to American agriculture being able to compete and prosper in the years ahead. That is why more than 60 agricultural organizations have committed themselves to work for fast track, and why we as former Secretaries of Agriculture support them in their effort. We urge you to do what you can to assure prompt passage of this legislation. Sincerely, Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture, Kennedy and Johnson Administrations; Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture, Nixon and Ford Administrations; John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, Reagan Administration; Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture, Bush Administration; Clifford Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture, Nixon Administration; Bob Bergland, Secretary of Agriculture, Carter Administration; Richard E. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, Reagan Administration; Mike Espy, Clinton Administration.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act, a bill that will establish a more deliberative, commonsense approach to U.S. sanctions policy. I'm pleased to be joined by several distinguished colleagues, in introducing this important piece of legislation. In recent years, there has been a proliferation in the use of unilateral economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy. While unilateral sanctions may be a low cost alternative to the deployment of American Armed Forces abroad--or to milder, less coercive choices--they almost never succeed in achieving their foreign policy objectives. They frequently impose a greater burden on American companies, producers, farmers, and workers than on the intended target country. A cardinal test of foreign policy is that when we act internationally, our actions should do less harm to ourselves than to others. Unilateral economic sanctions, unfortunately, often fail this crucial test. Mr. President, there have been a large number of studies on unilateral economic sanctions in recent years and they provide some interesting results. Manufacturers revealed that in the period 1993 to 1996, the United States imposed unilateral sanctions to achieve foreign policy goals 61 times in 35 different countries. Last year, the report of the President's Export Council cited 75 countries representing 52 percent of the world's population that have been subject to or threatened by U.S. unilateral economic sanctions. These actions have jeopardized billions in export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs, while weakening our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad. In another study, the Institute for International Economics concluded that, in 1995 alone, economic sanctions cost U.S. exports--to 26 countries--between $15-19 billion, and eliminated upwards to 200,000 U.S. jobs, many in high wage export sector. The damage to the U.S. economy can have long-term consequences. Once foreign competitors establish a presence in international markets abandoned by the United States, the potential losses begin to magnify. Over time, the cumulative effect of sanctions will be a loss of commercial contracts, but more importantly, may be a loss of confidence in American suppliers and in the United States as a reliable partner to do business. Frequent resort to economic sanctions, however, meritorious they may be, runs the risk of weakening the export sector which has contributed so greatly to our economic prosperity. This weakening effect can, in turn, have an adverse effect on our political influence abroad. The major difficulty with our increased use of unilateral economic sanctions is that they rarely achieve the foreign policy goals they are intended to achieve. Sanctions frequently give the illusion of action by substituting for more decisive action or by serving as a palliative for those who demand that some action be taken--any action--by the United States against another country with whom we have a disagreement. Sanctions can also make it more difficult diplomatically to engage foreign governments in dialogue to help bring about a political opening or a change in behavior. Serious trade sanctions can, in fact, inhibit, rather than facilitate, constructive dialogue with others. As a nation, we often seek instant gratification or quick results from our actions. Sanctions, however, take a long time to work and the change in behavior we seek in other countries will most often take place incrementally over time. In some cases, our sanctions have the unintended consequences of providing authoritarian leaders a basis for increasing their political support and rally opposition to the United States because our sanctions can be used to divert popular anger and resentment away from their own mis-deeds and mis-rule. Unilateral sanctions almost never help those we want to assist, they frequently harm the United States more than the sanctioned country and undermine our international economic competitiveness and economic security. Most regrettably, unilateral sanctions have become a policy of first choice when other policy alternatives exist. Nonetheless, some economic sanctions are effective and, therefore, must remain a tool of American foreign policy. Multilateral, unlike unilateral, sanctions have frequently advanced American national interests. The multilateral sanctions against Saddam Hussein following Iraq's aggression against Kuwait have slowed down Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Similarly, international sanctions aimed at Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia functioned to isolate them diplomatically and protect United States and allied interests in the Balkans. The international sanctions against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980's had a significant influence on bringing about a nonviolent peaceful transition in that country. Finally, the broad consensus to oppose Soviet expansion through export restraints on East-West trade in the Coordinating Committee, or CoCom, proved to be enormously effective. Most economic sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, must be in place for a long time before they are effective and their success will almost always be dependent upon extensive multilateral cooperation and compliance. Nothing in our proposed legislation prohibits unilateral economic sanctions. There are situations where other foreign policy options have been exhausted and where the actions of others are so outrageous or so threatening to the United States and our national interests that our response, short of the use of force, must be firm and unambiguous. In such instances, economic sanctions may be a useful instrument of American foreign policy. Mr. President, my proposed legislation is prospective. It will not affect existing U.S. sanctions. It will apply only to unilateral sanctions and to those sanctions intended to achieve foreign policy or national security objectives. It would exclude, by definition, U.S. trade laws, Jackson-Vanik and munitions list controls. It would not address the complex and important issue of state and local sanctions designed to achieve foreign policy goals, although these so-called vertical sanctions are increasingly important features of American foreign policy. More specifically, Mr. President, this legislation seeks to establish clear guidelines and informational requirements to help us understand better the likely consequences of our actions before we opt to impose economic sanctions. We should know in advance of voting on sanctions legislation what our goals are, the anticipated economic, political and humanitarian benefits and costs to the United States and other countries, the possible impact on our reputation as a reliable supplier, the other policy options that have been explored, and whether the proposed sanctions are likely to contribute to achieving the foreign policy objectives sought by legislation. Comparable requirements are also in the bill for sanctions mandated by the executive branch. Once sanctions are implemented, the bill also requires an annual report from the President detailing the degree to which sanctions have accomplished U.S. goals, as well as their impact on our economic, political and humanitarian interests, including our relations with other countries. The bill also provides for more active and timely consultations between Congress and the President. It provides Presidential waiver authority in emergencies or if he determines it is in the national interest. It includes a sunset provision that would terminate unilateral economic sanctions after 2 years duration unless the Congress or the President acts to reauthorize them. It includes language on contract sanctity to help ensure the United States is a reliable supplier. It identifies U.S. agriculture as an especially vulnerable sector of our economy that has borne a disproportionate burden stemming from U.S. economic sanctions. Because of this, there is discretionary authority for agricultural assistance in the bill. In addition, the bill opposes agricultural embargoes as a foreign policy weapon and urges that economic sanctions be targeted as narrowly as possible in order to minimize harm to innocent people and humanitarian activities. Mr. President, my sanctions reform bill represents an attempt to develop an improved and comprehensive approach to an important foreign policy issue. We, in the Congress, are often called upon to make difficult choices between conflicting interests or among our core values as a nation and our international interests. These are frequently hard choices that should be given careful attention and preceded by careful analysis. We should never turn our back on our fundamental values of supporting democracy, human rights, and basic freedoms abroad but we should ask whether we can alter the behavior of other countries by imposing sanctions on them. Many times we cannot do so and many times we exacerbate the very behavior we hope to reverse. There is no magic formula for influencing the behavior of other countries, but unilateral economic sanctions are rarely the answer. Nothing in this bill prevents the imposition of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions or dictates a particular trade-off between American core values and our commercial and other interests. The steps detailed in this bill provide for better policy procedures so that consideration of economic sanctions are preceded by a more deliberative process by which the President and the Congress can make reasoned and balanced choices affecting the totality of American values and interests. Mr. President, I feel strongly about this issue. I hope my colleagues will join the other original cosponsors by taking a close look at this legislation. I welcome their support and believe that if we deal with the sanctions issues in a careful and systematic manner, we can make a significant positive contribution to our national interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act, a bill that will establish a more deliberative, commonsense approach to U.S. sanctions policy. I'm pleased to be joined by several distinguished colleagues, in introducing this important piece of legislation. In recent years, there has been a proliferation in the use of unilateral economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy. While unilateral sanctions may be a low cost alternative to the deployment of American Armed Forces abroad--or to milder, less coercive choices--they almost never succeed in achieving their foreign policy objectives. They frequently impose a greater burden on American companies, producers, farmers, and workers than on the intended target country. A cardinal test of foreign policy is that when we act internationally, our actions should do less harm to ourselves than to others. Unilateral economic sanctions, unfortunately, often fail this crucial test. Mr. President, there have been a large number of studies on unilateral economic sanctions in recent years and they provide some interesting results. Manufacturers revealed that in the period 1993 to 1996, the United States imposed unilateral sanctions to achieve foreign policy goals 61 times in 35 different countries. Last year, the report of the President's Export Council cited 75 countries representing 52 percent of the world's population that have been subject to or threatened by U.S. unilateral economic sanctions. These actions have jeopardized billions in export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs, while weakening our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad. In another study, the Institute for International Economics concluded that, in 1995 alone, economic sanctions cost U.S. exports--to 26 countries--between $15-19 billion, and eliminated upwards to 200,000 U.S. jobs, many in high wage export sector. The damage to the U.S. economy can have long-term consequences. Once foreign competitors establish a presence in international markets abandoned by the United States, the potential losses begin to magnify. Over time, the cumulative effect of sanctions will be a loss of commercial contracts, but more importantly, may be a loss of confidence in American suppliers and in the United States as a reliable partner to do business. Frequent resort to economic sanctions, however, meritorious they may be, runs the risk of weakening the export sector which has contributed so greatly to our economic prosperity. This weakening effect can, in turn, have an adverse effect on our political influence abroad. The major difficulty with our increased use of unilateral economic sanctions is that they rarely achieve the foreign policy goals they are intended to achieve. Sanctions frequently give the illusion of action by substituting for more decisive action or by serving as a palliative for those who demand that some action be taken--any action--by the United States against another country with whom we have a disagreement. Sanctions can also make it more difficult diplomatically to engage foreign governments in dialogue to help bring about a political opening or a change in behavior. Serious trade sanctions can, in fact, inhibit, rather than facilitate, constructive dialogue with others. As a nation, we often seek instant gratification or quick results from our actions. Sanctions, however, take a long time to work and the change in behavior we seek in other countries will most often take place incrementally over time. In some cases, our sanctions have the unintended consequences of providing authoritarian leaders a basis for increasing their political support and rally opposition to the United States because our sanctions can be used to divert popular anger and resentment away from their own mis-deeds and mis-rule. Unilateral sanctions almost never help those we want to assist, they frequently harm the United States more than the sanctioned country and undermine our international economic competitiveness and economic security. Most regrettably, unilateral sanctions have become a policy of first choice when other policy alternatives exist. Nonetheless, some economic sanctions are effective and, therefore, must remain a tool of American foreign policy. Multilateral, unlike unilateral, sanctions have frequently advanced American national interests. The multilateral sanctions against Saddam Hussein following Iraq's aggression against Kuwait have slowed down Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Similarly, international sanctions aimed at Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia functioned to isolate them diplomatically and protect United States and allied interests in the Balkans. The international sanctions against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980's had a significant influence on bringing about a nonviolent peaceful transition in that country. Finally, the broad consensus to oppose Soviet expansion through export restraints on East-West trade in the Coordinating Committee, or CoCom, proved to be enormously effective. Most economic sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, must be in place for a long time before they are effective and their success will almost always be dependent upon extensive multilateral cooperation and compliance. Nothing in our proposed legislation prohibits unilateral economic sanctions. There are situations where other foreign policy options have been exhausted and where the actions of others are so outrageous or so threatening to the United States and our national interests that our response, short of the use of force, must be firm and unambiguous. In such instances, economic sanctions may be a useful instrument of American foreign policy. Mr. President, my proposed legislation is prospective. It will not affect existing U.S. sanctions. It will apply only to unilateral sanctions and to those sanctions intended to achieve foreign policy or national security objectives. It would exclude, by definition, U.S. trade laws, Jackson-Vanik and munitions list controls. It would not address the complex and important issue of state and local sanctions designed to achieve foreign policy goals, although these so-called vertical sanctions are increasingly important features of American foreign policy. More specifically, Mr. President, this legislation seeks to establish clear guidelines and informational requirements to help us understand better the likely consequences of our actions before we opt to impose economic sanctions. We should know in advance of voting on sanctions legislation what our goals are, the anticipated economic, political and humanitarian benefits and costs to the United States and other countries, the possible impact on our reputation as a reliable supplier, the other policy options that have been explored, and whether the proposed sanctions are likely to contribute to achieving the foreign policy objectives sought by legislation. Comparable requirements are also in the bill for sanctions mandated by the executive branch. Once sanctions are implemented, the bill also requires an annual report from the President detailing the degree to which sanctions have accomplished U.S. goals, as well as their impact on our economic, political and humanitarian interests, including our relations with other countries. The bill also provides for more active and timely consultations between Congress and the President. It provides Presidential waiver authority in emergencies or if he determines it is in the national interest. It includes a sunset provision that would terminate unilateral economic sanctions after 2 years duration unless the Congress or the President acts to reauthorize them. It includes language on contract sanctity to help ensure the United States is a reliable supplier. It identifies U.S. agriculture as an especially vulnerable sector of our economy that has borne a disproportionate burden stemming from U.S. economic sanctions. Because of this, there is discretionary authority for agricultural assistance in the bill. In addition, the bill opposes agricultural embargoes as a foreign policy weapon and urges that economic sanctions be targeted as narrowly as possible in order to minimize harm to innocent people and humanitarian activities. Mr. President, my sanctions reform bill represents an attempt to develop an improved and comprehensive approach to an important foreign policy issue. We, in the Congress, are often called upon to make difficult choices between conflicting interests or among our core values as a nation and our international interests. These are frequently hard choices that should be given careful attention and preceded by careful analysis. We should never turn our back on our fundamental values of supporting democracy, human rights, and basic freedoms abroad but we should ask whether we can alter the behavior of other countries by imposing sanctions on them. Many times we cannot do so and many times we exacerbate the very behavior we hope to reverse. There is no magic formula for influencing the behavior of other countries, but unilateral economic sanctions are rarely the answer. Nothing in this bill prevents the imposition of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions or dictates a particular trade-off between American core values and our commercial and other interests. The steps detailed in this bill provide for better policy procedures so that consideration of economic sanctions are preceded by a more deliberative process by which the President and the Congress can make reasoned and balanced choices affecting the totality of American values and interests. Mr. President, I feel strongly about this issue. I hope my colleagues will join the other original cosponsors by taking a close look at this legislation. I welcome their support and believe that if we deal with the sanctions issues in a careful and systematic manner, we can make a significant positive contribution to our national interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on Thursday, November 13, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in SR-328A. The hearing will examine ways renewable fuels could aid in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing U.S. energy security. notices of field hearings subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator. I think we both agree that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their materials, known- how, as well as associated means of delivery might very well be the number one national security threat facing the United States. As the Senator knows, when his resolution was raised at the Committee on Foreign Relations business meeting on October 9, 1997, I was concerned about the meaning of paragraph (2) of section (1). Paragraph (2) of section (1) states that: ``if the Russian response in inadequate'' to Presidential demands that the Russian Government take concrete actions to stop governmental and nongovernmental entities from providing ballistic missile technology and technical advice to Iran, ``the United States should impose sanctions on the responsible Russian entities in accordance with Executive Order 12938 on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and reassess cooperative activities with Russia.'' I was joined by several colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee who were also unsure of the intent of the Senator's language as well as the definition of the term ``cooperative activities''. As the Senator knows, many of our colleagues in Congress and in the executive branch believe that our ongoing cooperative efforts with Russia to dismantle, eliminate, destroy, and convert weapons of mass destruction, their materials, know-how, as well as associated means of delivery is vital of the national security interests of the United States. In particular, I am proud of the steps of our Department of Defense, Department of Energy and other executive agencies have made in reducing the threats to the United States from weapons and materials of mass destruction. I thank the Senator for taking the time to contact me personally and for working with me to ensure that this resolution does not have the unintended consequence of calling in question these critical national security programs. I believe the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the Department of Energy's Material Protection Control and Accounting Program, and others have played and will continue to play a critical role in serving the national security interests of the United States. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, October 31, 1997, after the first rollcall vote in the President's room of the Capitol, S-216, to mark up the nominations of Ms. Sally Thompson to be Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Mr. Joe Dial to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today the Senate completes action on the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1997. This legislation was approved by a unanimous rollcall vote of the 18 members of the Senate Agriculture Committee in July. I commend Senator Harkin and all members of the committee for their bipartisan approach and cooperative efforts in constructing this legislation. Because research programs were only authorized through 1997 in last year's farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee has had the opportunity this year to review agricultural research, extension and education funding. The committee gathered testimony through four hearings in March and received more than 100 responses to some relevant questions that I posed publicly in January. With the growth in world population, U.S. producers may well need to triple their production in the next few decades to meet growing demand for food and spare the world's rain forests from being uprooted in a desperate effort to expand production. To increase future food production, our Nation must devote additional resources to agricultural research. This bill provides new funding for agricultural research to address critical emerging issues related to future food production, environmental protection and farm income. Food genome science, food safety, agricultural biotechnology and precision agriculture are key areas that need additional resources to meet the challenges that face U.S. farmers. This bill also makes significant reforms to the current agricultural research system. This system has served us well. To use our available resources most effectively, however, it is important to ensure more collaboration and efficiency as well as achieve greater accountability. We cannot overlook the relevance or merit of the research, extension, and education programs. I urge all Members of the Senate to support this important legislation.

Mr. LUGAR. That is absolutely correct. We recognize that the food genome strategy will be different from other projects funded under title III. The food genome strategy will be a multi-State, multi- institutional, and multi-disciplinary program and, therefore, all individual proposals and projects could meet the tests for gaining a higher priority.

Mr. LUGAR. The food genome strategy will be a coordinated, directed program without regard to the origin of the funding.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, these initiatives, while allowing for all entities to compete competitively for funding, will be directed and coordinated programs that are designed to accomplish specific objectives. The request for proposals [RFP] that will be published by the USDA could be very specific in its requests. For example, one part of the RFP may request the development of 100,000 expressed sequence Tags on corn and another part may request a very high resolution physical map of corn.

Mr. LUGAR. The purpose of having a food genome strategy is to ensure that there is a comprehensive plan that includes appropriate, specific objectives for each aspect of the program, be it mapping, sequencing, trait identification, or bioinformatics.

Mr. LUGAR. That is correct. I agree that if the USDA does not provide sufficient funding for the plant genome initiative, it should not be the lead agency.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. The food genome strategy will be coordinated and directed and the outcomes will be focused on economically significant plants, animals, and microbes and will ensure that all the funding under the program will be directed at achieving results that ultimately will yield us the greatest economic returns.

Mr. LUGAR. Certainly, we intend for the work to be complementary. We expect the USDA to work with the Inter-Agency Working Group to ensure that the total amount of funds from all agencies is coordinated, directed, and focused. This will ensure that there is no duplication and better coordination.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reform the federal tobacco quota and price support programs. This legislation would provide economic assistance to tobacco quota owners, tobacco producers, and tobacco-dependent communities as they make the transition to the free market. Nearly every American is aware of the global tobacco settlement between 40 States' attorneys general and cigarette companies. Tobacco farmers and their communities were conspicuously omitted from these negotiations. Yet the settlement offers Congress a unique opportunity to provide economic assistance to tobacco farmers while ending the federal government's support for tobacco production. My legislation would buy out tobacco marketing quotas, provide transition payments to tobacco producers, phase out the price support program, and provide economic assistance to tobacco-dependent communities. The cost of these reforms would be approximately $15 billion and would be paid for with funds from the tobacco settlement. Because farmers were not considered in the negotiations that led to this settlement, this amount would be added to the current $368.5 billion. Under my legislation, the tobacco quota program would end in 1999 and, beginning that year, the price support program would be phased out over three years. In 1999, price supports would decline by 25 percent, then by an additional 10 percent in each of 2000 and 2001, and would end thereafter. Quota owners would receive $8 for every pound of quota they own. They could elect to receive either first, a lumpsum payment in 1999 if they agree to cease tobacco production altogether, or second, three equal annual payments beginning in 1999 if they choose to continue to produce tobacco. Tobacco producers would receive transition payments of 40 cents per pound over 3 consecutive years for tobacco quota that they lease or rent on a cash-rent or crop-share basis. Transition payments would be based on the average of at least 3 years of production over the 1993-97 period. Producers who both own and lease quota would receive transition payments based on their leased quota and a buyout based on the quota they own. Under this legislation, producers would be able to grow whatever amounts of tobacco they choose--free of Government control. Most other farm programs went through a similar change just last year when Congress passed the freedom-to farm legislation. The global tobacco settlement would provide the funds to assist tobacco farmers as they join other farmers in the free market. Communities that are economically dependent on tobacco production would receive $300 million in economic assistance. Eligible States would receive block grants to facilitate the development of alternative crops, industries, and infrastructure. Recipient States would then determine the areas most in need of assistance. Mr. President, with or without a settlement, the forces to reform the tobacco program have been converging for some time now and they can no longer be ignored. High-domestic price supports have hurt the competitiveness of U.S.-grown tobacco. Exports of tobacco have fallen, while imports have grown. Congress has already ended Government control over nearly every other farm commodity. And, most importantly, Congress cannot ask Americans to accept Federal support for tobacco production when we are considering legislation to settle claims that stem directly from tobacco use. Clearly, the tobacco program may not be sustainable for much longer. With that reality facing all tobacco producers, we should not pass up this opportunity to provide economic assistance to farmers and their communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.