Richard Lugar

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.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has changed the hearing schedule for October. The committee will meet on the following days: Tuesday, October 7, 1997 in SR-328A at 9 a.m. To consider the nomination of Sally Thompson to be the Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The committee will also consider other recently announced nominations whose paperwork is received in a timely manner. Wednesday, October 8, 1997 in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to examine food safety issues and recent food safety legislation proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to thank the floor managers for agreeing to include the city of Indianapolis flexible grant demonstration amendment in the manager's amendment to S. 462. The Lugar amendment would authorize the city of Indianapolis,in coordination with its public housing authority, to receive and combine program allocations from Federal housing assistance funds so that it has the flexibility to determine the best use of these funds. This amendment has the support both of Mayor Goldsmith and of the Indianapolis Housing Authority. My flexible grant demonstration amendment would give the city of Indianapolis, in coordination with the Indianapolis Housing Authority, the ability to receive and combine covered housing assistance to which the Indianapolis Housing Authority would otherwise be entitled. Covered housing assistance is defined as operating assistance, modernization assistance, section 8 certificate and voucher programs assistance, capital and operating funds assistance, and tenant-based rental assistance. It does not include other housing assistance programs for which the city or its public housing authority would otherwise be able to compete. This demonstration program would last for 2 to 5 years and would serve a variety of purposes. It could be used to provide incentives for low-income working families to become economically self-sufficient, to reduce costs of housing assistance by providing funds in the most effective manner, to increase the stock of affordable low-income housing and housing choices for low-income families, to increase home ownership among low-income families and for other ways in which the city in coordination with the public housing agency could make more effective use of limited housing funds. Under no circumstances would there be any reduction in the number of low-income families who would otherwise be served with housing assistance had these amounts not been combined. In fact, by allowing greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness in the use of these funds, my amendment will increase and enhance housing assistance to lower income families who need it. I urge support for my amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Tuesday, October 7, 1997 at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this hearing is to examine food safety issues and recent food safety legislation proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I did not object to the Ford sense-of-the- Senate amendment to S. 1061. I agree with its sentiment that the needs of tobacco farmers should be taken into account when Congress considers the proposed tobacco settlement. I wish to express reservations about two points in the Ford amendment's language. First, the amendment says that any compensation to tobacco growers should ``be included within the $368.5 billion in payments.'' However, we do not now know that the size of the settlement will be precisely $368.5 billion. It may be larger. Moreover, payments to growers might be additive to the settlement amount, whatever its size. Second, the amendment expresses a desire to ensure ``the continued administration of a viable federal tobacco program which operates at no net cost to the taxpayer.'' I favor compensating tobacco farmers for the equity they have built up in the quota system over the years. Such a buyout of the quota program should lead to, at most, a minimal price- supporting role for the Government. That is what we have done for the producers of most other commodities in the 1996 FAIR Act: Transition payments, and price supports at market-clearing levels. I believe that to continue the present tobacco program without change is not likely to be viable, so I find the amendment's language acceptable. Because some might read it to imply an endorsement of the status quo, I simply want to register my view that such a reading is neither required by the amendment's language, nor in the long-term interest of tobacco producers. Mr. SPECTER addressed the chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the employees of Carl F. Booth & Co., Inc., in New Albany, IN. Each of the company's 44 employees helped construct the wooden case which holds the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address in the newly renovated Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress. Carl Booth & Co., which produces custom plywood, specializes in providing interior plywood for jets and airplanes. The company has produced plywood for numerous corporate and celebrity jets and Air Force One. Under the leadership of Carl Booth, the employees of the Indiana woodworking company displayed great dedication and enthusiasm in working on the plywood for the case, which took over 500 man-hours to produce. We are honored to have such fine workmanship to hold the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, two important documents in the history of America. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the employees of Carl Booth & Co. for their contribution to this important project.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Army Sgt. Kelly S. Yarde, who hails from Evansville. Sergeant Yarde, who is currently serving in Bosnia with Operation Joint Guard, was moved by the sadness he saw in the faces of Bosnia's children each time he went out on patrol. In response, he appealed to the people of his hometown and surrounding areas, asking for donations of school supplies, toys and sporting goods that he could give to these children. Local media helped to publicize Sergeant Yarde's plea, and the community responded in magnificent fashion. Hundreds of donations have already poured in, and are continuing to arrive at collection bins set up at local businesses. Some of the gifts have already been shipped to Bosnia, and Sergeant Yarde has, on his own time, taken them to orphanages and refugee centers. Americans are, by their nature, very generous people. The fact that we can not solve every problem in the world should not prevent us from solving at least some of them. I am pleased and proud that Sergeant Yarde had the foresight to identify a problem that he could help to solve, and had the faith in his community to ask for help in solving it. I am equally pleased that the people of Evansville and the surrounding area responded so generously to Sergeant Yarde's plea on behalf of the children of Bosnia.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Rockefeller. This concurrent resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States Government should fully participate in EXPO 2000 in the year 2000, in Hannover, Germany. It further states that the United States should encourage the academic community and the private sector in the United States to support this worthwhile undertaking. The theme of EXPO 2000 is ``Humankind-Nature-Technology''. It's purpose is to provide a forum for a worldwide dialog on the challenges, goals, and solutions for the sustainable development of mankind in the 21st century. The United States must maintain its status as a leading political, intellectual and economic power. We must continue our strong interest in strengthening political freedom and human rights movements, encouraging open market economies, and stimulating technological advancement around the world. Participation in EXPO 2000 will allow the United States to preserve its leadership role and to continue providing the example the rest of the world attempts to imitate. Mr. President, I understand that a similar concurrent resolution will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Oxley, Hamilton, Bereuter, and Pickett. It is my hope that the United States will play a role at EXPO 2000 in Hannover, Germany, commensurate with its position in the world. I would hope the Senate would consider this concurrent resolution at the earliest possible date.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee markup of the Agriculture Research bill as well as the nominations of: Mr. August Schumacher to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services and a Member of the Board of Directors for the Commodity Credit Corporation; Dr. Catherine E. Woteki to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety; Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics; and Ms. Shirley Watkins to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and a Member of the Commodity Credit Corporation. The business meeting will take place in SR-328A, at 9 a.m., on Wednesday, July 30, 1997. committee on rules and administration

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Thursday, September 4, 1997, at 9 a.m., in SR- 328A. The purpose of this hearing is to examine rural and agricultural credit issues.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in my home State of Indiana, corn refining adds substantially to the value of our corn crop. On average, Indiana produces 800 million bushels of corn annually. It is estimated that corn refining--primarily through the production of high-fructose corn syrup--adds about $200 million to the value of Indiana's corn crop. In addition to enhancing the value of our corn crop, corn refining results in the direct employment of approximately 1,700 Hoosiers with an estimated payroll of over $70 million. It is for the above reasons that I join Senators Grassley, Harkin, Daschle, and Kerrey in introducing a concurrent resolution instructing the United States Trade Representative to take the appropriate actions in regards to a preliminary imposition of antidumping duties against United States exports of high-fructose corn syrup to Mexico. These duties were imposed on June 25 in response to a petition brought to the Mexican Government by the sugar producers' organization in Mexico. Prior to our adoption of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA], duties on high-fructose corn syrup were 15 percent. This year, under our negotiated agreements, with should have dropped to 9.5 percent. The preliminary antidumping finding has disrupted the planned program for the duty reduction on this important agricultural product. Duties now in effect because of this decision are as much as four to five times the pre-NAFTA levels. Mr. President, this case involves important matters of international trade policy and the interests of U.S. agricultural producers. The preliminary finding of the Mexican Government appears to be in violation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Antidumping. This agreement requires that governments fully investigate allegations brought by private parties before opening government investigations. In this case, Mexico's sugar industry stated that there was no production of high-fructose corn syrup in Mexico. This is inaccurate which means the Mexican sugar industry did not have standing under WTO rules to file this case. Three years ago this chamber helped take a major step toward creating a growing free-trade area in the Western Hemisphere. Passage of NAFTA was not an easy matter, as you will recall. However, those of us from agricultural areas--with strong support from the U.S. corn industry-- worked hard to achieve its passage. With the passage of last years FAIR Act, we reduced price and income support for U.S. corn farmers. Increasing exports is the only alternative for U.S. farmers to maintain a stable level of farm income. One of the best ways to continue agricultures export performance is to ensure that unwarranted and unfair trade barriers are not erected. I hope you will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second- degree amendment to my amendment be in order.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment that I introduce comes to the floor because no funding for the National Endowment for Democracy is in this bill. It has been zeroed out. The bill as written proposes to eliminate the National Endowment for Democracy, a program that has been enthusiastically supported by every administration, Republican and Democratic, since President Ronald Reagan's first term, and by every Congress, Republican and Democratic, since 1983, when it was first launched. The amendment we are proposing would continue funding for the National Endowment for Democracy at this year's level, namely $30 million. It does not seek an increase in funding. But it proposes that the funding continue. The amendment would shift $30 million from the State Department Capital Investment Fund in the bill to the National Endowment for Democracy. I point out, Mr. President, that even with the $30 million shifted from the State Department Capital Investment Fund, that fund will still exceed by $11 million the administration's request. The capital investment fund is an important initiative. Many of us have written to Secretary Albright and the President about the importance of strengthening the State Department's technological and communications capability. They are significant and important deficiencies in the State Department. And this bill will go a long way to correct them. But, Mr. President, the administration requested a total of $64 million for these purposes. The bill before us includes a funding level of $105 million, some $41 million over the President's request. Therefore, Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the administration favors our amendment, it favors support of the amendment because it provides for the National Endowment for Democracy and all that had been requested, and more, for the Capital Investment Fund of the State Department. Let me point out, Mr. President, an important editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning that very succinctly sums up the case that we make. The Wall Street Journal editorial states--and I quote: A United States Senate accustomed to forking up multibillions will debate the government's equivalent of the widow's mite today, a $30 million appropriation to fund the National Endowment for Democracy. An appropriations subcommittee chaired by New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg decided not long ago in a fit of austerity to defund the NED, on grounds that it was a relic of the Cold War. The same subcommittee awarded the State Department $100 million, $40 million more than it requested, just to buy computers. We don't think for minute that a title with the word ``democracy'' in it imparts virtue to a federal enterprise in and of itself, and we confess to having had some skepticism of our own about the NED some years after it was founded in 1984. But a closer look at what the NED has been up to produces some surprises. Its rather unusual design seems to have encouraged considerably more initiative in its mission of spreading democracy around the world than would be expected of the usual federal agency. Maybe that's because it is not a federal agency, but a free standing foundation with its own board of directors supported by both federal and private money. It channels its grants through four institutes, two of which are operated by the two major U.S. political parties. One achievement of this Ronald Reagan brainchild was to help Poland's Solidarity break the grip of the Soviet Union in the Cold War days. But it is doing some rewarding work today as well. Its Republican branch, the International Republican Institute, help set up free elections in Mongolia last year, turning that once-Communist country into a democratic, free market paragon. IRI also is helping villages in China learn how to conduct free and fair elections of local governing committees something they are entitled to do under Chinese law. The Democrats, through their National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, are doing similar work. American politicians are helping teach practical politics at the very foundations of democracy, and doing it on a shoestring. Is this of value to the U.S.? You only have to ask yourself whether the world is safer with a democratic or an authoritarian China to answer that question. The fact that private corporations are willing to fund special NED projects in non-sensitive situations offers evidence that enlightened businesses value the stability that democracy and a rule of law bring to the countries where they seek to operate. Bulgaria is one such place where new democrats are being offered such aid. Since news of the defunding became known, the NED has had an outpouring of support from people around the world who have direct knowledge of its contributions. Hong Kong democratic leader Martin Lee, who faces tough battles ahead in coping with Hong Kong's new Beijing landlords, penned a letter to Senator Connie Mack begging him to help save the NED, Senator Bob Graham has heard from Sergio Aguayo of the Civic Alliance, which has had a strong hand in promoting the multiparty democracy now taking root in Mexico. Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick and William Bennett, along with such varied Senate personalities as Richard Lugar, Chris Dodd, John Kyl and Ted Kennedy have weighed in one behalf of NED. The NED recently sent out an invitation to kindred groups in Germany, Britain, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands to a meeting in Taiwan in October it will co-sponsor with Taiwan's Institute for National Policy Research. The purpose of this gathering in one of the world's newest democracies is to foster NED-type groups in still more countries. What a shame it would if the U.S. Senate collapsed with an attack of parochialism on the eve of such a bold endeavor. That is the end of the Wall Street Journal editorial. Mr. President, I simply make the point that the NED is not a cold war relic. The President of the United States, currently, President Bill Clinton, just as Ronald Reagan at the inception of this, sees the value of this type of activity. President Clinton has said if we are going to make a difference in Chinese democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy and its International Republican Institute is on the spur of what needs to happen by promoting the organization of elections in local villages. And this we are doing. These things do not happen by chance. The President has commended the idea that the National Endowment for Democracy has been involved in Mongolia, has commended the work that is occurring in situations where not only free and fair elections have occurred, but in its unique way the National Endowment for Democracy, by placing labor leaders in nations that have gained democracy, helps build labor unions. The Chamber of Commerce, by placing businesspeople under the National Endowment for Democracy's auspices, helps market economics get started. Are these important to the United States? You bet they are. The fact is, a free and fair election can occur, and the cold war may be over, but our Nation needs to relate to other nations that have ongoing sensitivity toward labor-management relationships, market economics, price finding in the markets, freedom of speech, and political dialog that our political parties have fostered. The suggestion, Mr. President, is this could be done by private enterprise all by itself. But that would have no particular legitimacy. The backing by the Congress, by the administration, by every living Secretary of State, every living National Security Adviser, every living President, of this idea ought to at least weigh in with this body. There may be Members second-guessing all of these people and saying they are simply out of it. But I would advise Members, they are very much with it. They understand the dynamics of what has to happen in the world and why it is important for these four groups in the National Endowment for Democracy to band together throughout several administrations and with a continuity of effort to make a substantial difference in the world. Mr. President, I cited a few moments ago letters that have been written. I want to mention specifically one from the Laogai Research Foundation, and a name that all will recognize in this body, Harry Wu, its executive director. He simply says: Tomorrow (Thursday), in a letter he wrote to me yesterday, in a vote on the Senate floor, you will be presented with a choice to either support the N.E.D. or [to] kill it. I understand that particular . . . programs may, from time to time, draw the ire of lawmakers. [But] may we suggest that when this is the case, leaders such as yourself [must] suggest . . . what internal changes need to be made. In other words, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. If the United States intends to maintain its leading role in world affairs, continued Congressional support of the National Endowment for Democracy is imperative. I have cited a letter that was written by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Vin Weber, a whole galaxy of people involved in Empower America. They are important voices, living, active voices, not relics of the cold war. They understand the dynamics of what we ought to be doing in American politics. They are joined, as I have suggested earlier, by Sandy Berger, currently the National Security Adviser, and by all the National Security Advisers since the NED was created. Mr. President, I want to cite specifically a letter from Martin Lee, chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong. Not long ago, many in this Senate honored Martin Lee. Prior to the turnover in Hong Kong, most of us were worried about Martin Lee and democracy. I simply cite Martin's letter in which he says: My main purpose in writing now is to express my concern about proposals I understand are before the Senate to consider eliminating funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. I know you have always been a strong supporter of NED and the important work it does around the world, but I wanted to write to express my conviction the National Endowment for Democracy is indeed indispensable in a world where democracy and freedom are not entrenched and where--to cite the example of Hong Kong--all democratic institutions can be wiped out by fiat. In Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia-- Martin Lee says and around the world, the struggle to preserve democracy, political freedom and the rule of law is far from being won. Let me just simply say, Mr. President, this is serious business. What is being proposed here in our amendment is that $30 million for computers and technological equipment the State Department did not seek be restored to the National Endowment for Democracy that they did ask for. The request of the President is for this money, leaving fully all of the requests that the administration made for the equipment. Mr. President, what we have before us we need to see very clearly. There are Members of the body who simply want to kill the National Endowment for Democracy. Now, I resist that idea, and for good reason. The experience of most of us in this Chamber, I hope, would be to say that we have to be active on the front lines, and we have to be active as Republicans, Democrats, labor union members, and business people in our own expertise and synergy and continuity; we have to be active not simply in setting up those activities our diplomacy can do--free and fair elections--but the centers of support of commerce, of labor, of freedom of speech and press and contract law and the details that, alone, make continuity possible and second and third elections in countries transitioning to democracy possible. Mr. President, I do hope that Members will support this amendment. I think it is very important for the foreign policy and security of this country. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, or I will ask unanimous consent as a part of my assent to the idea before us, that I have the right to withdraw my amendment, and I would say, for clarity of all sides, my intent would be to send an amendment to the desk promptly thereafter. I simply want to make certain that all sides know this, so there is not any misunderstanding. But I reserve the right to object until I am certain I could withdraw my amendment and send an amendment to the desk. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 981.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Harkins's amendment to increase the tobacco deficit-reduction assessment and devote the proceeds to enforcement of the Food and Drug Administration's rules to deter underage smoking. Senator Harkin has discussed this amendment with me and I find it fully consistent with my own views on the urgency of preventing smoking. The increased assessment will still contribute to future deficit reduction because it will assist us in preventing smoking. When a young person makes the mistake of beginning to smoke, serious health risks are created for the individual. The problems do not end here, however. A decision to smoke is also a decision to increase potential future health care costs. Many of these costs are borne by the Federal and State governments. People who do not begin smoking will be less a burden on the Nation's health care system and on the Nation's treasury. The primary benefit of the amendment, however, will be on the lives of individual young people. If they do not begin smoking in youth, they are unlikely to start once they attain greater maturity. Preventing smoking at an especially vulnerable age is a national priority and I commend Senator Harkin for advancing it in this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I am aware that recent studies by USDA, GAO, the Kansas City Fed, and the Rural Policy Research Institute have all noted the difficulty rural businesses, particularly new businesses, have in obtaining capital. The studies also suggest that a lack of adequate credit for rural businesses is affecting the economic growth of those communities.

Mr. LUGAR. I, too, am concerned that rural entrepreneurs do not have the same kind of access to capital markets as do their nonrural counterparts. I am also aware of concerns raised by various groups in regards to my esteemed colleague's amendment. I believe a hearing will offer the opportunity to vet all points of view. It is my intent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry hold a hearing on rural and agricultural credit as soon as possible in the hopes that we can find a timely solution to this problem.