Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, is it the intent of the distinguished chairman to continue debate on my amendment? The request has been made to lay the amendment aside.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. As the Senator will recall, we took this international legitimacy as a basis for our literally asking other nations all around the globe to pay the bulk of the moneys for Desert Storm. As I recall, over $50 billion was collected from Japan, from Germany, and from many of the nations that are being cited now as countries to whom we owe money in other peacekeeping endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered strikes Title XXII, which is the portion of the legislation that deals with payments of arrears to the United Nations and reform of the United Nations. I offer this amendment fully respectful and cognizant of the remarkable work achieved by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Helms, and the Ranking Member, Senator Biden, in negotiating on behalf of members of the committee a comprehensive bill with regard to the organization in the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies, in addition to the matters relating to the United Nations that are the subject of my amendment. Mr. President, I want to discuss very broadly today why I take this occasion to offer this amendment because the timeframe for consideration is necessarily very short. The markup in our committee occurred just last Thursday. The debate today on the floor is occurring on Monday, and presumably we will have votes on these and other issues on Tuesday, tomorrow. Therefore, Senators and their staff will need to understand issues quickly in order to make a judgment on what I believe is a monumental turning point in American foreign policy, and perhaps one of the most serious foreign policy debates that we will have this year. I ask, first of all: Why have we come to such a point? By that, I mean why and how could the United States have come to owe hundreds of millions of dollars to the United Nations? It did not occur overnight. As I will illustrate in the course of my remarks, the amounts we owe are, in most respects, not to the United Nations organization per se. Indeed, again and again I will reiterate that only about 5 percent of our arrears are actually owed to the United Nations. Well over $650 million of the money is owed to other countries in which the United Nations is merely a passthrough largely to these countries for reimbursement of past peacekeeping expenses. So the debts that we owe are to Great Britain, to France, to Germany, to Italy, and to a host of friends and allies of the United States. We have accumulated debts to them largely because of their peacekeeping activities that we voted for. Our country frequently took the position that we were not in a position nor did we wish to send Armed Forces to various areas in which the United Nations, with our votes, decided to try to keep the peace. Therefore, our agreement in these cases was to pay money while other nations sent their forces, and on some occasions contributed money also. I mention this point because for several years there has been an assumption on the part of many Members of this body and of the House-- perhaps even of the Presidential administration--that the U.N. had very great problems. As a matter of fact, many Members from time to time have suggested a lack of general support for the United Nations, suggesting that it impinged on our sovereignty, and on our ability to conduct foreign policy in a straightforward way. In fact, Mr. President, I submit that a great number of Americans not confined to this Chamber have come to a psychology that the United Nations has been preying upon us; that somehow an organization located in our country, in New York City, has been imposing insuperable demands upon us and they resent that. And, because of our resentment, so this argument goes, we ought to reform the U.N; we ought to teach it a lesson; we ought to deprive it of money; we ought to make editorial views of those activities we think are not very good, even those that we have voted for; and that by depriving the United Nations of money change its course, we indicate that we really do not wish to participate at all. Mr. President, I think we are coming to a much more crucial point in this debate than simply whether we will pay the arrears--the money that we owe. I think Senators will fundamentally have to determine: Should we continue to be a part of the United Nations? Because, if in fact the United Nations is deprived of the funds that we owe and other nations take our lead and are not prepared to pay either for diverse reasons of foreign policy it is apparent that the United Nations will be severely weakened. As a matter of fact, it will be less and less effective, if effective at all. So, Mr. President and Members, I think at the outset as we come to an understanding of how we got to this point, we have to decide: Do we really want the United Nations to be a forceful advocate for peace, for justice, an instrument of our foreign policy, and a group of nations in which we play a vital role as members of the Security Council with veto power from the beginning of the San Francisco Charter? Do we want this? If we do, we are going to have to not only try to shape up the United Nations but shape up our own views and our own activities as a member State--our own leadership, as a matter of fact--if the United Nations is to be effective. I come out on the side of one who believes that we ought to be active and vital in the United Nations; that, as a matter of fact, the United Nations plays an important part in our foreign policy; that it is extremely important to our overall security in the world; and, that it is an organization in which we play a leading role which ought to be supported by us as opposed to constricted by us, demeaned by us, and criticized by us. Given an opportunity, it seems, that the Congress has again and again not only tried to inhibit the United Nations but, as a matter of fact, may finally succeed in killing it off, if we are not thoughtful. Mr. President, if Members believe that these are the views of their constituents in a representative democracy, eventually the U.N. will receive the brunt of those attacks. But I would suggest that the American people have different views. As a matter of fact, Members will be interested in polls taken by the Wirthlin group and other polling groups for the United Nations Association. And one question that I found relevant was this one: Considering the problems we are likely to face in the coming years, how important is it for America to be an active part of the United Nations--an active part--very important, somewhat important, or not important that America be an active member? Fifty-four percent of Americans said it is very important that we be an active member. Another 28 percent said it is somewhat important that we be an active member. Only 12 percent said it is not important, and 6 percent had no answer. That is a rather extraordinary breakdown. Mr. President, of 82 percent of Americans, 54 percent are saying it is very important to be very active in the United Nations. Then in a Times Mirror poll, they asked: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States should cooperate fully with the United Nations? On that kind of a question, 65 percent say we should cooperate fully. Twenty-nine percent disagree with that proposition. Another question asked: Do you favor or oppose legislation that would have the United States withdraw completely from the United Nations? The Wirthlin group found again: 22 percent favor withdrawal, 71 percent oppose withdrawal, and 7 percent had no answer. On still another quesiton, overall, do you think that in the long run efforts to strengthen the U.N. would be a good investment or not a good investment? This is the program on international policy attitudes poll. Sixty-eight percent of Americans said good investment, and 28 percent, not a good investment. Now we come to the crux of our issue today, Mr. President. The question posd was: Do you favor or oppose the United States paying its U.N. dues in full? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat strongly? Thirty percent favor strongly our paying our dues in full. Twenty- eight percent favor somewhat. Thirteen percent oppose somewhat, and 16 percent oppose strongly. Adding together those figures, Mr. President, you once again get about the same 2-to-1 ratio. Fifty-eight percent believe that we ought to pay in full, and 29 percent do not. By 2 to 1 the American public believe that we ought to be paying our fair share and our full share. Interestingly enough, another qustion asked: Do you believe that U.N. member states should always pay their full dues to the U.N. on schedule, or should a state hold back its dues to pressure other members to agree to changes that it believes are needed? Again, the Wirthlin poll. Mr. President, in 1989, 60 percent of Americans said we should always pay. In April 1996, 78 percent said members should always pay. I find that interesting, Mr. President. The evolution of the American people with regard to the United States meeting its obligations has led to a much higher percentage of Americans saying that member states should always pay. Honor U.N. peacekeeping--the basic reason that we are here today, as a general rule, when it is necessary to use military force to deal with trouble spots in the world--Do you feel more comfortable having the United States contribute to a U.N. military action or for the United States to take military action by itself? Sixty-nine percent said U.N. military action while 24 percent said U.S. action alone. Do you think peacekeeping should be a high priority of the United Nations' system; somewhat of a priority; or not a priority? The Wirthlin group poll again: 75 percent of Americans in April 1996 said a high priority, somewhat of a priority said 17 percent, and not a priority, only 6 percent. Mr. President, I shall not recite further polling data except to make the observation that by fairly large ratios of about 2 to 1, or larger than that, Americans believe that we ought to participate in the U.N.; that we ought to pay our dues on time; that all nations should pay their dues on time; that peacekeeping operations are very important for the United Nations to conduct. I mention that because it appears to me that most Members may not be aware to whom we owe the money. I would just simply point out, Mr. President, and I take this opportunity to cite precisely the countries to whom we believe we owe money. They may have different views as to how much we owe, but there is general agreement between the administration and the Foreign Relations Committee to have come up with the figure of $819 million to be authorized and appropriated in one form or another. We have agreed that the U.S. portion of that debt is more than one-third. Using that ratio, France is owed by the United States $60.1 million; Great Britain is owed $41 million; the Netherlands, $21.3 million; Pakistan, $20.1 million; Germany, $18.3 million; Belgium, $17.3 million; Italy, $17.2 million, $16.1 million to India; $14.2 million to our neighbor Canada, and a long list of countries with smaller sums than that, all owed by the United States, with the United Nations merely a passthrough to them. Mr. President, it is clear, at least in my judgment, that we owe the money, that it is clear to whom we owe the money, but it is not at all clear whether the money is likely to be repaid. Now, I mention this because we had a debate in the Foreign Relations Committee markup on Thursday and the assertion was made essentially, and the press has picked up this story largely intact, that however you look at this, this provision entails a significant change in the course of American foreign policy. Essentially there is now agreement on the part of the United States to pay a part of the money we owe. Following the Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Nick Burns, on behalf of the administration, was asked: ``What are you saying to Senator Lugar who says that the arrears are contractual obligations of the United States and should not be the subject of conditions?'' Mr. Burns punts the issue, in my judgment. He says: Well, I think President Clinton and Secretary Albright have been very clear for as long as they have been in office that we do not like being the largest donor--that is, debtor--to the United Nations. In fact-- Mr. Burns says, and I am quoting-- we have called ourselves publicly the largest deadbeat debtor to the United Nations. We don't like that. The American people don't want their Government to be in arrears to any institution, much less the United Nations, but we have an opportunity here to make sure that while we take steps that are costly for us to pay off our arrears, we send forward a very strong signal that reform is important and the reform ought to be followed through. Mr. Burns continues. We have taken the opportunity and we have not been met with a fundamental objection by Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. He has welcomed the progress that has been made this week. He has put forward his own reform proposal. So we don't have a problem with the Secretary General and we certainly would look forward to the continued support of Senator Lugar in this effort. Mr. President, I am not certain what that means. Clearly Mr. Burns does reflect the thought of the administration and most Americans. We do not like to be thought of as a deadbeat country, but he is suggesting, I suppose, that somehow all of that has been finessed this week--a certain amount of reform, a certain amount of payment, the Secretary General not giving fundamental objections and a hope that somehow I might be pacified. I was even more intrigued by reports on Saturday in the Washington Post and the Washington Times after our Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, was accompanied by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Rod Grams, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of the subcommittee dealing with international organizations. Senator Grams and Ambassador Richardson went to New York and had a press conference. I quote from the story by John Goshko in the Saturday, June 14, issue of the Washington Post. John Goshko said: They denied Congress wants to micromanage the United Nations and they insisted the plan is not a take-it-or-leave- it proposition. Instead, they said, it is a set of suggestions aimed at helping the United Nations become, as Grams said, the best United Nations it can be. The two officials' assertions that conditions or so-called benchmarks in the plan are only suggestions ran counter to remarks by Senator Helms on Thursday. Senator Helms is quoted in the story. ``This bill will prohibit the payment--prohibit the payment--``by the American taxpayers of any so-called U.N. arrears until these congressionally mandated benchmarks have been met by the U.N.,'' Helms said. Quote again. The message to the U.N. is simple but clear: no reform, no American money for arrears. On another key point, Mr. Goshko says: Washington desires to cut the U.S. share of the U.N. operating budget from 25 percent to 20 percent. Richardson said it would be his job to negotiate with the other members to win such a change. But---- Says Mr. Goshko-- Helms used language implying that attainment of that goal is not subject for negotiation. Mr. President, let me just say that clearly at some point or other in this debate or on some other occasion, we will have to make up our minds. It will be impossible for Ambassador Richardson or my distinguished friend, Senator Grams, to go to New York and indicate, as the Washington Times said, and they quote Senator Grams: ``These are broad suggestions.'' At a press conference both men took pains to soften the edges of a bill most here see as a nefarious ``take it or leave it'' offer. Mr. Grams said he plans to spend time at the United Nations this summer selling the package to foreign envoys. But at this stage, whether one has the hard version or the soft version, my basic question is: is it likely the money will be repaid at all? And that is fundamental. If you buy my premise the United Nations is important, that it is important for us to make sure it is beefed up, is stronger, is viable as a part of our foreign policy, then, at a minimum, this means we must pay our arrears. And those arrears are only slightly owed to the U.N. superstructure. Most is owed to our allies with whom we have dealings in many other fora. If, in fact, we pass legislation--and I believe the legislation that came out with regard to Title XXII, the arrears section we are discussing, leads to so many stipulations, not only micromanagement but conditions to a fault, that the likelihood of very much money passing to our allies or to the U.N. is very small. The Washington Times article and writer counted as many as 20 conditions that would be required. My staff, in analyzing title XXII, has found at least 38. I have discussed briefly some of the major conditions, and these are major decisions for the United Nations must make to get its money and to make possible our payment of the arrears to our allies. But it is quite a change from dues in which we pay 25 percent of the U.N. budget to 20 percent and is quite a move for us to get 31 percent dues for peacekeeping down to 25. There are many Americans, not simply Senators in this Chamber, who would rather pay less. So I suspect there will not be an argument that, given your druthers, it would have been fine if our statesmen negotiated a long time ago a U.N. debt for dues for us of 20 percent as opposed to 25, or for 25 percent for peacekeeping as opposed to 31. Mr. President, I think we have to recognize that we are saying in this legislation is that unless the rest of the world, the other 183 countries, acquiesce to the United States and arbitrarily lower our dues, we will not pay. There may be a suggestion somehow that money is going to come forward, but unless those two requirements are met, it does not appear to me possible that payment is likely to occur. Now, we add on a number of other conditions such as the fact that U.N. conferences can occur in only four cities in the world and the rest of the world will have to accept that because we put it in this bill and we have said, in essence, we are not going to pay unless each of these conditions is met. Perhaps Ambassador Richardson and Senator Grams read this legislation in a different way and saw all of this legislation as merely suggestions, sort of ideas that might be kicked around up there at the U.N. with our friends. That is not the way the bill reads. It says you meet our requirements or there is no money to pay our past dues. And the distinguished chairman of the committee has underlined that view in his own remarks last Thursday. So, Mr. President, is the money likely to be paid? Probably not. And that means that the debate we are having today is likely to linger. The problem is there will not be as good a time to finally take care of this problem than there is presently. The Budget Committee, those who have been working on the overall reduction to zero deficit in 5 years, set aside the money and their plan is for us to pay off. If we do not authorize the money to do that, then it disappears from the table. It is unlikely to appear again. I do not suspect that the Congress will be involved in another 5-year plan for deficit reduction soon. We will have adopted one. We will be in the plan. We can choose to authorize the money and appropriators can finally decide whether to appropriate it. But at this point we come up with an option, under 20 conditions or 38 conditions, or however many you may be able to derive from Title XXII, that if we decide not to pay any money, we are going to have a problem, and that is what I want to discuss. Now, what are the problems if we don't pay? I think the problems are not only the inevitable weakness of the U.N., but the quality of our relationships with our allies in the world. Americans may not realize that is the problem we are talking about, our relations with Germany, Great Britain, Italy, with our NATO allies. At other times in other fora we are discussing NATO expansion, we are discussing new obligations, and arguing how extensive those will be. And most Americans, including myself, who have argued for NATO expansion have pointed out that we anticipate our obligations will be relatively small. I accept the estimate of the President of the United States in his London press conference with Prime Minister Blair that we will be paying $150 million to $200 million a year. But this implies that our European allies will be paying a lot more. The countries coming in will have to pay a great deal to bring their infrastructure up to speed to meet the common defense principles. Essentially, the United States will take the position with regard to NATO expansion that burdensharing means a very large burden taken on by our European allies for their defense, for the defense of Europe, and we will argue that that is perfectly logical; they are the countries most in harm's way and that we already have provided substantial infrastructure in Europe. But the stakes are very high and the money sums are very large that we are going to ask of European allies. Now, what if, in the midst of that argument, we still have the U.N. arrears situation? There are Members of the Senate arguing: We don't like the United Nations. We think it's top heavy with bureaucrats, that these people are inefficient, that too many come from countries other than our own, that essentially they hold too many conferences in strange cities all over the world, and we will not pay either the United Nations or our European allies until all of this is terminated--ad seriatim, as you go through and read Title XXII. Those negotiations for NATO expansion might be very difficult. I suggest a whole set of other negotiations may be very difficult. I had in my office this afternoon a distinguished Austrian statesman. We have a lot at stake in negotiating on agriculture with Europe, enormous sums, in terms of whether we come to agreement on technology, science and on export subsidies and export taxes. There is a lot at stake for a lot of Americans. Those negotiations are very tough. We are coming up to another GATT round in 1999 on agriculture. It is not at all certain how much headway we shall make. But it makes an enormous difference, in billions of dollars of exports, that we make a lot of headway and that we be negotiating with friends in good faith. How in the world can we anticipate useful negotiations on NATO or the European agriculture plan or the GATT situation with the very same countries to whom we are, in essence, saying: Sorry, we are not going to pay because a number of Senators don't like the United Nations? They still have a billboard mentality which says, ``Get us out of the United Nations.'' Some of us are going to have to say on this floor, ``Not only keep us in, but make the U.N. work.'' I certainly subscribe to every reform proposal that makes sense at the United Nations, and the Secretary General, who is a friend of the United States, subscribes to much of that. I have no doubt if we are a vigorous player in the United Nations, as opposed to taking the thought that we are being preyed upon by a group of nations over whom we have no control. If we are a vigorous player, we are going to be able to negotiate changes that are substantial, and we are going to have to do that in the European Community with the agricultural plan and with NATO. There is no free lunch in this business. The idea that we can, with an ultimatum, say, ``Take it or leave it,'' and that somehow the United Nations will make these changes to accommodate us, I believe is unrealistic. Mr. President, let us take, hypothetically, one more situation suggested by the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, during the markup in the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Kerry said, from his experience in dealing with U.N. reform, and he has had substantial experience on this topic, he thinks there is a possibility that all the other 183 countries will acquiesce. They will finally read Title XXII as the Foreign Relations Committee adopts it and grudgingly, and with great passion and recrimination and so forth, understand that it's lights out for the United Nations if they don't acquiesce to the United States, which they will describe as a bully, as a country operating totally outside international norms, as a country that did not recognize its obligations. That is still another scenario. I gather proponents of the bill think that is the best scenario. The United States wins. We reduce our dues unilaterally and our peacekeeping moneys. We managed to bully every other nation on Earth into acquiescence on the basis that a United Nations without us would be unthinkable. I would say, under those circumstances, we still have ahead some mighty rough sledding with regard to any other international organizations or negotiations on trade, or NATO, or whatever. The amendment I have offered is a simple solution. It says, in essence, that we owe $819 million. We ought to pay it in 2 years, two equal installments with no conditions, because we owe it to other countries, essentially. We owe it to some international organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organizations, the FAO. We are about $100 million behind in our dues payment to them. We are about to lose our seat and our vote, even while those of us in agriculture feel it is very important we be at the table. There are consequences for being a deadbeat, for trying to stiff other countries. We ought not do it. We ought to affirm that the United Nations is important, that we are a leading player, that we are the leading player in terms of confidence building in international diplomacy, in security arrangements which the United Nations represents. I have offered this amendment as a substitute for the entirety of 18 pages that contain all of these conditions, an extraordinary array of pages and language. I am hopeful Members and their staffs will read this before they commit themselves to a vote in favor of this provision. I rise today simply to offer Members an alternative. The distinguished Senator from Delaware, the ranking member of the committee, has argued with a great deal of skill in the Foreign Relations Committee markup, that even if my position is right, even if there is some logic to what I have to say, the fact is the alternative was never my position. The fact is, the very best situation that he was able to negotiate with the distinguished chairman of our committee was for 18 pages of title XXII as they now exist. In essence, we are faced with the situation, as I read the logic of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, of a take it or leave it with the Senate, quite apart from a take it or leave it with the rest of the world. The implication is, if we do not adopt title XXII as negotiated, there is likely to be no money, zero money, for the United Nations. But I am suggesting that the outcome of adopting title XXII may very well be zero money for the United Nations, that you get to zero either way, that we have not solved the arrears problem, that the headlines that somehow or another the United Nations is about to be revived are premature. Or, to state Senator Kerry's position, as I have already: Somehow, the United Nations gets the money, they go through all the hoops and with all of the resentments, recriminations, and difficulties we have around the world, we pay dearly, a multiple of whatever has been squeezed out of this process. It is not an easy choice for Senators to make. But that is why I pose it in these terms and why I believe it is fundamentally one of the most important debates that we shall have about foreign policy. It gets to the heart of our relationship with our friends, with the rest of the world, and with the United Nations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator has stated the options all too vividly; namely, we respond to security crises by ourselves or we say nothing is going to happen in the world. And worse still, we lose the option, if we do not have the United Nations, of going as we did to the Security Council, at the time the United States presided, during Desert Storm when we obtained a Security Council resolution that brought a number of nations to our side in a very, very important endeavor.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is absolutely correct, that our interests were served. We voted for peacekeeping operations. Other nations stepped forward, and we agreed to pay our fair share of the money and not to send our troops.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I will be pleased to respond.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and the Chair. Let me summarize. Earlier in the afternoon I offered an amendment to strike Title XXII from the legislation dealing with the United Nations. Essentially, I call for payment of our debt in 2 years, without conditions. Title XXII, as we observe, contains 18 pages of conditions. That is the issue. Senator Biden, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, argued that he believed in principle that my arguments were correct. He argued that pragmatically, in the negotiation that he had encountered with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, the chairman led him to believe that the amounts of money, $819 million, and the conditions that are imposed by Title XXII were the best arrangement that was possible under these circumstances. The distinguished Chairman, Senator Helms, has argued that the Foreign Relations Committee ought to take action, as opposed to allowing the appropriators to take action, as so often has been the case with matters before our committee in recent years. I certainly subscribe to that thought, that we ought to take action. Clearly this bill as a whole is an attempt to do so in a very comprehensive and positive way. But it is important that Members realize the gravity of the debate that we are having on the United Nations. Senator Sarbanes, I think correctly, in his remarks, mentioned that the very thought of withdrawal, which appears in this bill, is a very serious business. Earlier I suggested that it is not at all beyond conjecture that there will be no money paid to the United Nations given the severity and the number of conditions that are required; that Members, in casting a vote on this, have to consider that casting that vote imperils the United Nations, quite apart from our reputation for paying our debts to our allies who have been involved in peacekeeping operations which we supported. These are serious matters. A basic dilemma is that the language is very complex. Many Senators may not have had an opportunity to read what the conditions are and all the reasons why this Senator argues it will be very difficult for the payments to be made. Senators may not have realized the implications of nonpayment, noncooperation, and nonleadership on our part could imperil the United Nations. If Senators are, in fact, of a mind that they really do not care or if they believe the United Nations has served its time and that this is an unusual back-door way of finalizing the problem, that is one point. But if Senators believe, as do two-thirds of the American people, that the United Nations is important, that we ought to be taking leadership, that we ought to be paying our debts, then Senators will vote to do so. They will support my amendment. It is not inconceivable that my amendment should pass and that we should proceed along this course of action. What has been argued this afternoon by the distinguished Ranking Member of the committee is that the distinguished Chairman disagreed with payment of very much money, and the distinguished Chairman insisted upon a large number of conditions. Apparently, he acquiesced and finally allowed some of the funds to be stricken from the legislation. That is the argument we are having. I would simply say that Senators must consider this, I believe quickly, because the timeframe of all this debate is very rapid. If there were more time, my guess is that around the Nation, members of the general public, editorial writers in newspapers, opinion leaders in foreign policy would agree, this is very serious. This is a moment of truth for the Senate with regard to the United Nations. There would be time for many people to reflect upon this, including Senators who must vote. And it is very possible that Senators would decide we really want to take leadership and we want to affirm the ties that we have with our allies to whom we owe the money. As we have pointed out again and again, $658 million is owed to countries such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and other friends and allies--not to the Secretariat of the United Nations or the structure that has been described as overblown. That is a red herring; just 5 percent of the money is owed to the United Nations per se. The real issue is whether we will meet our obligations to our friends, whether we will take leadership at the United Nations, whether we will assert that the United Nations should continue as an important part of our foreign policy.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator. I would like to be heard again on my amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for his questions. Mr. President, during this debate, strangely enough, we have really not argued about the text of the 18 pages that I wish to eliminate with my substitute amendment. No Senator has risen to defend that language and the labyrinth of the conditions that are involved in it. Rather, we have had a suggestion that this was the best that could occur, given the players in the legislative drama. I say it is not good enough. As a matter of fact, I believe that very drastic circumstances not in our interest are liable to arise from this language. This is why I make a point of it. I have not generally not offered amendments to this legislation. I believe the reorganization efforts and a good number of reforms that the committee has brought about in this legislation are important. But I believe the particular item we are talking about now with regard to continuation of the United Nations is a critical item and deserves underlining. It deserves attention, it deserves careful reading by all Senators prior to vote on my amendment or on final passage of legislation that will contain this arrears provision. I conclude simply by saying that I believe the United Nations is important for our foreign policy. I believe we ought to be vigorous in taking international leadership, in making certain that the United Nations fulfills our aspirations in working constructively with other nations. I believe we ought to pay our obligations to other nations. I believe, as a matter of fact, if we do so, we are likely to be more effective in our negotiation with many of the same nations in other vital international negotiations that will continue on the expansion of NATO, on freer and fairer trade around the globe, and on a number of things that are very important to our security and bread-and-butter interests. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. As neither the Chairman nor Ranking Member are on the floor, I suspect the Chair may or may not be in a position to grant that. I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. Of course, one of the most vivid and recent experiences was that in Bosnia, to which our country for some time did not wish to commit forces, did not wish to commit NATO or get a vote of our NATO allies. So, as a result, other nations attempted to bring about peace in Bosnia largely because our Nation stood aside but indicated to them they ought to carry on.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will transfer the census of agriculture from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture [USDA]. I am pleased that the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, as well as Senators McConnell, Santorum, Daschle, Roberts, Leahy, Kerrey, Baucus, Landrieu, Cochran, Conrad, Johnson, Craig, and Grassley have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. In recent years the census of agriculture has been conducted every 5 years. Agricultural producers nationwide are asked questions regarding their production and sales. The census of agriculture is the only source of consistent, county level statistics on agricultural operations throughout the United States. It also provides national and State data. The census of agriculture is useful in monitoring the current status of, as well as documenting changes in, the agricultural industry. The number of farms, a major piece of data resulting from the census, is taken into account in the allocation of funding for several USDA programs. Last year Congress provided funds to USDA to allow USDA, in cooperation with the Department of Commerce, to conduct the next census without any substantive changes in scope, coverage, or timing. This transfer of funding necessitates the transfer of the authority. Transferring the authority for the census of agriculture to the USDA makes common sense. This move would integrate the agricultural statistics programs of the two Departments and eliminate duplication. USDA states that cost savings will result with one agency given primary authority over the content of the census as well as dissemination of its results. The issue of moving the census surfaced during final conference committee deliberations on the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. Given the time constraints of that conference, a provision to transfer the census of agriculture to USDA was not included in the bill. Subsequent legislation was passed by the House, but did not receive approval from the Senate before the end of the session. Last year, the Department of Commerce expressed some interest in changing the definition of a farm, which is now defined as sales of $1,000 or more per year. While USDA has stated there will be no substantive changes with how the upcoming census is carried out, it is more logical to provide the authority to set the definition to the Department whose programs would be most affected by a change. Many agricultural associations and organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, support the transfer of the census of agriculture to USDA. Last month, USDA proposed legislation which is virtually identical to this bill. I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would respond to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee by saying that I intend to work with the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, to craft a bill that will comply with the bipartisan budget agreement's food stamp provisions.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will transfer the census of agriculture from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture [USDA]. I am pleased that the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, as well as Senators McConnell, Santorum, Daschle, Roberts, Leahy, Kerrey, Baucus, Landrieu, Cochran, Conrad, Johnson, Craig, and Grassley have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. In recent years the census of agriculture has been conducted every 5 years. Agricultural producers nationwide are asked questions regarding their production and sales. The census of agriculture is the only source of consistent, county level statistics on agricultural operations throughout the United States. It also provides national and State data. The census of agriculture is useful in monitoring the current status of, as well as documenting changes in, the agricultural industry. The number of farms, a major piece of data resulting from the census, is taken into account in the allocation of funding for several USDA programs. Last year Congress provided funds to USDA to allow USDA, in cooperation with the Department of Commerce, to conduct the next census without any substantive changes in scope, coverage, or timing. This transfer of funding necessitates the transfer of the authority. Transferring the authority for the census of agriculture to the USDA makes common sense. This move would integrate the agricultural statistics programs of the two Departments and eliminate duplication. USDA states that cost savings will result with one agency given primary authority over the content of the census as well as dissemination of its results. The issue of moving the census surfaced during final conference committee deliberations on the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. Given the time constraints of that conference, a provision to transfer the census of agriculture to USDA was not included in the bill. Subsequent legislation was passed by the House, but did not receive approval from the Senate before the end of the session. Last year, the Department of Commerce expressed some interest in changing the definition of a farm, which is now defined as sales of $1,000 or more per year. While USDA has stated there will be no substantive changes with how the upcoming census is carried out, it is more logical to provide the authority to set the definition to the Department whose programs would be most affected by a change. Many agricultural associations and organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, support the transfer of the census of agriculture to USDA. Last month, USDA proposed legislation which is virtually identical to this bill. I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the celebration of the life and recordbreaking Senate career of Senator Strom Thurmond gives each of us an opportunity to underline strengths of our friend and our colleague which we should emulate. Senator Thurmond is the oldest of our colleagues, but my most vivid memories of him have often involved his interaction with young people. During a trip to military installations early in my Senate career, I learned much about successful constituent relationships from Strom. Even while on the road, Strom Thurmond was receiving the names of South Carolinians who had recently died, were married, or enjoyed personal honors such as graduation or academic recognition. With the assistance of his able staff, Strom obtained daily lists of names and placed telephone calls, through his Washington office, to at least 2 dozen of these persons, according to my observations, leaving appropriate messages when necessary. He displayed the greatest excitement over students and could often identify their parents and their grandparents as he shared pride in the accomplishments of the entire family. Upon arrival at one naval base that shall remain nameless, Strom demonstrated another attribute, which has been partly responsible for his longevity of Senatorial service. We were greeted by the naval captain who commanded the base and, after just a few words of conversation, Strom indicated that it was 4:30 in the afternoon, he had been traveling for hours, and he wanted to jog around the base. He invited the astonished commanding officer to join him for the run and strongly insisted that this would be an excellent opportunity. As negotiations on the running assignment proceeded, the captain successfully pled the press of urgent duties and encouraged a young ensign to suit up for running duty with Senator Thurmond. I saw this episode repeated on another occasion. I noticed a remarkable excitement which young people enjoyed when running with Strom Thurmond. This excitement is not restricted to miscellaneous strangers that Strom met across the country. Last summer, I found that Strom's son, Paul, was a member of my fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, and that several of his fraternity brothers were interns in Senator Thurmond's office. I invited them to lunch in the Senate dining room where, midway through our meal, Strom entered with constituents from South Carolina. I was deeply touched while watching Paul greet his dad and the constituents and indicate to all the importance of the reelection campaign in which the entire family was heavily involved. Paul critiqued Strom's early morning TV appearance and the current stress of various activities, giving his dad advice. Then Paul and his fraternity brothers shared with me great stories about their experiences with Strom, including his intense interest in their daily activities. All of us know from our daily visits with Strom Thurmond on the floor of the Senate that he greets each of us warmly. He is excited by these encounters, almost as if it were the first time in a long while that he has seen us. In visiting with these young men who were interns in his office, and later with my own son, David Lugar, who had a wonderful conversation with Strom at a fundraising reception, I found a common theme. Strom, obviously, is invigorated by his meetings with young people, and he has much to say to them about successful patterns of living. His political instruction is surely world class, and I suspect that all of us recognize the power of a truly disciplined life that has been lived with the setting of important goals and the sustained activity necessary to achieve them. Very fortunately, Strom has not only set a record for longevity of service in the Senate, he is still among us, giving encouragement each day and inspiring the best of our efforts. I am very grateful for the privilege of serving with him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in his efforts to make USDA a more efficient user of taxpayer money. The Department of Agriculture has a long history of wasteful spending on information technology [IT]--telecommunications and computers. Over the past 10 years, USDA invested almost $8 billion on IT purchases that were often poorly planned, incompatible, and redundant. Recently Secretary Glickman lamented the stovepipe mentality that pervades USDA planning and purchases of information technology. That is, each agency of the Department protects its own turf and budget, and is reluctant to coordinate its IT planning and purchases with other agencies. The Secretary's observations are consistent with messages we have sent to USDA in years past. Five years ago, Senator Leahy and I warned that ``money invested by USDA in computer technology over the past several years has been spent without a clear understanding of what was being purchased or what was operationally required to increase efficiency within the Department.'' We asked then Secretary Madigan to curtail computer purchases until a ``strategic plan or vision for Department reorganization is completed.'' We still await a final version of the current strategic plan. For over a decade, audits of USDA's IT purchases have uncovered the same root problems: inadequate control, planning, and direction of IT investments. Historically, USDA's administration has failed to exercise the authority to control the IT expenditures of its 30 agencies. These agencies' independent IT purchases have led to systems that are unable to communicate across the Department. This has impeded program delivery and resulted in a labyrinth of duplicative and incompatible systems that has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. The 104th Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act, which requires performance and results-based management in IT planning and purchases throughout Government. Clinger-Cohen created the position of the Chief Information Officer [CIO], a high-level executive responsible for achieving program delivery through prudent and coordinated IT investments. The concept of CIO coordination of IT planning and purchases is already widespread in the private sector. To be successful, the CIO must have significant legal and budgetary authorities. The CIO at USDA has neither. Individual agencies, which control their own budgets, can ignore the CIO. Currently, USDA's CIO has the responsibility to coordinate IT investments across agencies, but lacks the planning and budgeting authority to meet this responsibility. Without such authority, the problems of the past are sure to continue. The legislation I introduce today builds on Clinger-Cohen by giving the CIO at USDA the legal and budgetary authorities necessary to manage IT across USDA's 30 agencies. This bill accomplishes three things. First, the CIO is given the legal and budget authorities necessary to sucessfully manage IT to benefit the Department as a whole. Second, the CIO is given subcabinet rank within USDA, and will report directly to the Secretary. Third, the CIO is given the authority to approve or disapprove all purchases for telecommunications and computers. One important provision of this bill transfers to the CIO 10 percent of all USDA agencies' appropriations for salaries and expenses, to be used for IT planning and purchases. This amount can be adjusted by the Secretary. When the CIO approves an expenditure, the funds are released back to the agency. My purpose in including this provision is to provide the CIO with sufficient authority to control IT throughout USDA. I understand that Secretary Glickman may prefer alternative methods of achieving this goal. I look forward to working with him to craft the best means of accomplishing our common objective, because I genuinely intend this legislation to be helpful to his efforts and want to be supportive. Secretary Glickman sincerely wants to change the stovepipe mentality that pervades decisionmaking among USDA's 30 agencies. The Secretary has expressed a desire to reform the planning and budgeting of IT expenditures. He has stated a desire to halt the pattern of uncoordinated planning and ill-advised purchases that has resulted in the waste of taxpayer dollars. I believe the Secretary agrees that we cannot afford the operating procedures which exist today. However, the challenge of effecting change in the long-standing pattern of stovepipe agencies operating on their own is formidable. By introducing this bill today, I offer my assistance to the Secretary in this difficult and heretofore elusive task. The intent of this legislation is to help the Secretary realize his vision of a common USDA spirit by allowing him to implement reforms across the entire Department of Agriculture. I look forward to working with him to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of IT purchases and in so doing improve delivery of USDA programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in his efforts to make USDA a more efficient user of taxpayer money. The Department of Agriculture has a long history of wasteful spending on information technology [IT]--telecommunications and computers. Over the past 10 years, USDA invested almost $8 billion on IT purchases that were often poorly planned, incompatible, and redundant. Recently Secretary Glickman lamented the stovepipe mentality that pervades USDA planning and purchases of information technology. That is, each agency of the Department protects its own turf and budget, and is reluctant to coordinate its IT planning and purchases with other agencies. The Secretary's observations are consistent with messages we have sent to USDA in years past. Five years ago, Senator Leahy and I warned that ``money invested by USDA in computer technology over the past several years has been spent without a clear understanding of what was being purchased or what was operationally required to increase efficiency within the Department.'' We asked then Secretary Madigan to curtail computer purchases until a ``strategic plan or vision for Department reorganization is completed.'' We still await a final version of the current strategic plan. For over a decade, audits of USDA's IT purchases have uncovered the same root problems: inadequate control, planning, and direction of IT investments. Historically, USDA's administration has failed to exercise the authority to control the IT expenditures of its 30 agencies. These agencies' independent IT purchases have led to systems that are unable to communicate across the Department. This has impeded program delivery and resulted in a labyrinth of duplicative and incompatible systems that has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. The 104th Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act, which requires performance and results-based management in IT planning and purchases throughout Government. Clinger-Cohen created the position of the Chief Information Officer [CIO], a high-level executive responsible for achieving program delivery through prudent and coordinated IT investments. The concept of CIO coordination of IT planning and purchases is already widespread in the private sector. To be successful, the CIO must have significant legal and budgetary authorities. The CIO at USDA has neither. Individual agencies, which control their own budgets, can ignore the CIO. Currently, USDA's CIO has the responsibility to coordinate IT investments across agencies, but lacks the planning and budgeting authority to meet this responsibility. Without such authority, the problems of the past are sure to continue. The legislation I introduce today builds on Clinger-Cohen by giving the CIO at USDA the legal and budgetary authorities necessary to manage IT across USDA's 30 agencies. This bill accomplishes three things. First, the CIO is given the legal and budget authorities necessary to sucessfully manage IT to benefit the Department as a whole. Second, the CIO is given subcabinet rank within USDA, and will report directly to the Secretary. Third, the CIO is given the authority to approve or disapprove all purchases for telecommunications and computers. One important provision of this bill transfers to the CIO 10 percent of all USDA agencies' appropriations for salaries and expenses, to be used for IT planning and purchases. This amount can be adjusted by the Secretary. When the CIO approves an expenditure, the funds are released back to the agency. My purpose in including this provision is to provide the CIO with sufficient authority to control IT throughout USDA. I understand that Secretary Glickman may prefer alternative methods of achieving this goal. I look forward to working with him to craft the best means of accomplishing our common objective, because I genuinely intend this legislation to be helpful to his efforts and want to be supportive. Secretary Glickman sincerely wants to change the stovepipe mentality that pervades decisionmaking among USDA's 30 agencies. The Secretary has expressed a desire to reform the planning and budgeting of IT expenditures. He has stated a desire to halt the pattern of uncoordinated planning and ill-advised purchases that has resulted in the waste of taxpayer dollars. I believe the Secretary agrees that we cannot afford the operating procedures which exist today. However, the challenge of effecting change in the long-standing pattern of stovepipe agencies operating on their own is formidable. By introducing this bill today, I offer my assistance to the Secretary in this difficult and heretofore elusive task. The intent of this legislation is to help the Secretary realize his vision of a common USDA spirit by allowing him to implement reforms across the entire Department of Agriculture. I look forward to working with him to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of IT purchases and in so doing improve delivery of USDA programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Ann Jorgensen to the Farm Credit Administration Board of Directors and Lowell Junkins to the Farmer Mac Board of Directors. Both nominees appeared before the Agriculture Committee on April 10 and both were favorably reported out of committee on April 15 by unanimous vote. The Farm Credit System is an important source of agricultural credit for rural America. The system is regulated by the Farm Credit Administration, which has had a vacancy on its three-member Board since March 31, 1995. I am pleased that after that long vacancy we have a qualified nominee to complete the board. Ms. Jorgensen has a distinguished career in farming, entrepreneurship, and public service and will serve ably as an FCA board member. Farmer Mac was created by Congress in 1988 to promote a secondary market in farm real estate loans. The Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996 provided Farmer Mac with additional authorities to develop a successful secondary market. The future of Farmer Mac will be determined in the next 2 years. It is important that qualified individuals serve on the board to help move Farmer Mac toward a successful secondary market for agricultural loans. Mr. Junkins has served as a recess appointee to the Farmer Mac Board of Directors since April 1996. Mr. Junkins was also spoken highly of by the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, Senator Grassley, and Congressman Boswell. Ann Jorgensen and Lowell Junkins are well qualified and should be confirmed by the Senate to the Farm Credit Administration Board and the Farmer Mac Board respectively. I urge my colleagues to vote for their nomination.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is with great admiration that I rise today to recognize David Carter, a citizen of Indianapolis and a close family friend, for his achievement in reaching the peak of Mount Everest. David's successful ascent to the summit of Mount Everest bordering Nepal and Tibet is the realization of a boyhood dream. This achievement exemplifies his extraordinary determination and courage. On this, his second attempt to reach the peak, David approached the mountain's difficult conditions with bravery and extremely careful preparation. Through high winds and extremely cold temperatures, his expedition met the challenge. In explaining what drew him back for a second try, David simply answered: unfinished business. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating David Carter on the day of this signal victory which brings special pride to all Hoosiers.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to repeal an outdated agricultural law that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars over the last several years. Historically, as part of its statutory mandate to support farmers' income, the Department of Agriculture made payments to farmers for the planting of certain crops and in cases of natural disaster. In the process of carrying out this mission, USDA sometimes mistakenly overpaid farmers. A provision of the 1990 farm bill, known as the finality rule or the 90-day rule, allowed farmers to keep these overpayments if they were not discovered within 90 days of the payment or application for farm program benefits. Repayment is required in cases of fraud or misrepresentation involving the farmer. Whatever its merits in 1990, changes in farm policy and new evidence indicate that the finality rule should be repealed. At the time of the 1990 farm bill, to be eligible for farm program payments, it was necessary for the county or State USDA office to determine that farmers were actively engaged in farming and that their operations were structured properly. Farmers often relied on these determinations before deciding which crops to plant, the size of the plantings, and how to structure their farming operation for the crop year. However, the landmark reforms in the 1996 farm bill eliminated these justifications for the finality rule. Under the 1996 farm bill, farm payments are no longer linked to the planting decisions of farmers and the structure of the farming operation is unlikely to change. Today, payments are made based on a formula which does not vary from one year to the next. The finality rule does not only apply to farm program payments. It applies to most types of payments received by farmers including disaster relief assistance. But these disaster payments have been dramatically scaled back in recent years. In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act which largely eliminated disaster assistance payments for most major crops. Instead of disaster aid, farmers were encouraged to buy crop insurance. A recent report from the General Accounting Office provides further evidence that the finality rule should be repealed. According to GAO, from November 1990 through September 1996, USDA applied the finality rule to 10,694 cases in which the overpayments were not discovered within the 90-day time-frame. The rule allowed farmers to keep $4.2 million in overpayments. Nearly 90 percent of the overpayments involved crop disaster initiatives or old-style farm programs which no longer exist. GAO also looked closely at finality rule payments in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Even though the justification for the finality rule was to prevent farmers from having to repay large amounts of money years after the money was paid, GAO found that most of the overpayments involved small sums and were discovered within 9 months or less. According to GAO, in the years studied, 86 percent of the finality rule cases involved $500 or less. In addition, 59 percent had overpayments amounting to 10 percent or less of the correct payment amounts, and two-thirds were discovered within 9 months of the date of payment or the filing of a program application. It should be noted that while most of the overpayments were small, a few large overpayments accounted for the bulk of the dollar value of the overpayments. An examination of the GAO data indicate that the finality rule, in its application, has not served its original stated purpose. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Agriculture agrees that the finality rule should be repealed. In those limited number of cases in which repayment would work a hardship on the farmer, the very cases that finality rule was supposed to assist, USDA has indicated that it would use existing procedures already in place for debt collection in hardship cases. In summary, Mr. President, the finality rule was largely designed for programs which have been dramatically altered, it generally does not serve the hardship cases for which it was designed, and it can be replaced by other existing procedures designed for hardship cases. The Department of Agriculture and the General Accounting Office support its repeal. It is time to remove this outdated law from the books. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to repeal an outdated agricultural law that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars over the last several years. Historically, as part of its statutory mandate to support farmers' income, the Department of Agriculture made payments to farmers for the planting of certain crops and in cases of natural disaster. In the process of carrying out this mission, USDA sometimes mistakenly overpaid farmers. A provision of the 1990 farm bill, known as the finality rule or the 90-day rule, allowed farmers to keep these overpayments if they were not discovered within 90 days of the payment or application for farm program benefits. Repayment is required in cases of fraud or misrepresentation involving the farmer. Whatever its merits in 1990, changes in farm policy and new evidence indicate that the finality rule should be repealed. At the time of the 1990 farm bill, to be eligible for farm program payments, it was necessary for the county or State USDA office to determine that farmers were actively engaged in farming and that their operations were structured properly. Farmers often relied on these determinations before deciding which crops to plant, the size of the plantings, and how to structure their farming operation for the crop year. However, the landmark reforms in the 1996 farm bill eliminated these justifications for the finality rule. Under the 1996 farm bill, farm payments are no longer linked to the planting decisions of farmers and the structure of the farming operation is unlikely to change. Today, payments are made based on a formula which does not vary from one year to the next. The finality rule does not only apply to farm program payments. It applies to most types of payments received by farmers including disaster relief assistance. But these disaster payments have been dramatically scaled back in recent years. In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act which largely eliminated disaster assistance payments for most major crops. Instead of disaster aid, farmers were encouraged to buy crop insurance. A recent report from the General Accounting Office provides further evidence that the finality rule should be repealed. According to GAO, from November 1990 through September 1996, USDA applied the finality rule to 10,694 cases in which the overpayments were not discovered within the 90-day time-frame. The rule allowed farmers to keep $4.2 million in overpayments. Nearly 90 percent of the overpayments involved crop disaster initiatives or old-style farm programs which no longer exist. GAO also looked closely at finality rule payments in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Even though the justification for the finality rule was to prevent farmers from having to repay large amounts of money years after the money was paid, GAO found that most of the overpayments involved small sums and were discovered within 9 months or less. According to GAO, in the years studied, 86 percent of the finality rule cases involved $500 or less. In addition, 59 percent had overpayments amounting to 10 percent or less of the correct payment amounts, and two-thirds were discovered within 9 months of the date of payment or the filing of a program application. It should be noted that while most of the overpayments were small, a few large overpayments accounted for the bulk of the dollar value of the overpayments. An examination of the GAO data indicate that the finality rule, in its application, has not served its original stated purpose. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Agriculture agrees that the finality rule should be repealed. In those limited number of cases in which repayment would work a hardship on the farmer, the very cases that finality rule was supposed to assist, USDA has indicated that it would use existing procedures already in place for debt collection in hardship cases. In summary, Mr. President, the finality rule was largely designed for programs which have been dramatically altered, it generally does not serve the hardship cases for which it was designed, and it can be replaced by other existing procedures designed for hardship cases. The Department of Agriculture and the General Accounting Office support its repeal. It is time to remove this outdated law from the books. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce the African Growth and Opportunity Act. A similar bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives and is now cosponsored by nearly 50 Members. It enjoys the support of many in the House leadership. I applaud the hard work of those Members of the House who have toiled to draft proactive legislation that would, if enacted, help re-shape our relationship with countries in sub-Sahara Africa. The bill I am introducing contains a range of trade, investment and reform incentives for economic growth that require little or no new spending. It reflects much of the administration's ``Partnership for Economic Growth and Opportunity in Africa'' initiative which proposes greater U.S. attention and priority to Africa. This bill proposes important trade and investment initiatives that would be available to eligible African countries which pursue meaningful internal reforms-- both economic and political reform. The bill would seek to provide a range of trade preferences and concessions, including GSP and lower trade barriers, to eligible countries embarking on economic and political liberalization. It seeks to encourage increased private sector investment flows by engaging OPIC and other government guarantees to create private equity and infrastructure funds targeted on Africa. It proposes certain personnel changes in various government agencies to give greater attention to Africa and to facilitate U.S. trade and investment. It seeks the cooperation of international financial institutions to ease the heavy debt burden of the poorest countries in Africa. And, it seeks the cooperation of other developed countries to join us in granting trade concessions and other preferences to Africa. To achieve sustained economic growth and political stability in Africa, the private sector must be more fully engaged. They have the investment capital, they have the knowhow, and they have the will to take calculated risks abroad. The private sector, however, will be more interested in investment, trade and the technical assistance that accompany them, if countries make the hard decisions to liberalize their economies and open their political system to participation and good governance. That process is underway in Africa, but much more needs to be done. This bill intends to increase our commercial and official contacts and interactions in recognition of the enormous potential for economic growth and development in Africa. It reflects the vast diversity of people, cultures, economies, and potential among the forty-eight countries and the more than 600 million people. It provides incentives and rewards to the growing number of countries embarking on a host of economic and political reforms. These are reforms we should encourage and support. These changes are not only in the interests of African societies, they are in our interest as well. A stable and economically prosperous Africa will contribute to our commercial and security interests. The ``African Growth and Opportunity Act'', therefore, includes a range of incentives and policy tools that would begin the long-overdue process of linking U.S. ties with Africa on trade and investment, not solely on foreign assistance. We should be basing our relations with Africans as partners, not just as aid recipients. For too long, American policy towards Africa has concentrated on our foreign assistance programs which have resulted in little more than a series of bi-lateral donor-recipient relationships. While helpful in promoting economic and political development, and in alleviating humanitarian crises and other social ills, our assistance programs were never large enough to be effective in stimulating or sustaining real economic growth. They are still important and needed. But, bilateral assistance, even when coupled with assistance from other donor countries and from international banks and lending institutions, are insufficient by themselves to kick-start and sustain the economies of Africa. They have not been sufficient in eradicating contagious diseases, in eliminating chronic poverty, or in ending the cycle of under-development and recurring political turmoil. Mr. President, we have neglected Africa's economic growth potential for too many years. For too long, American interest in sub-Sahara Africa was largely a function of our strategic considerations and trade-offs during the Cold War period. Most Americans paid attention to Africa only when there was a natural or man-made calamity or disaster. Regrettably, this has led to distortion and mis-information about the real Africa. It has retarded interest in exploring opportunities in this rich and diverse continent. But, economic growth, political stability or the protection of human rights in Africa won't happen by themselves or by the actions of the U.S. The leadership in Africa must make it happen by their actions and decisions. We should encourage and respond to those countries and those leaders who are making the difficult decisions to implement economic and political reform. There is little doubt that those African countries which have embarked on the road to economic and political reform are beginning to reap the kind of benefits known in other regions of the world, such as East Asia. Several countries already enjoy multi-year economic growth in the five, six to ten percent range. Uganda, for example, had a growth rate of 10% in l995 and Ethiopia exceeded that level last year. More than 30 countries in sub-Sahara Africa have already initiated economic reform programs and some twenty-five countries have conducted open elections. Many countries have begun to liberalize their exchange rates and prices, privatize state-owned enterprises, reduce expensive state subsidies and cut back on impediments to trade and investment. These steps and others will help African economies grow. African trade barriers are more onerous than those in the faster growing economies in the developing world. Import tariffs are three and a half times higher than those in faster growing countries in the developing world. Along with non-tariff restrictions and assorted protectionist practices, these practices have hurt the competitiveness of Africa exports. They inflict trade losses that match or exceed the total levels of aid to Africa. As these barriers to trade and investment are eased and eliminated, they will open the way for economic growth and assist American entrepreneurs by opening their markets to our goods and services. It may interest members to know that U.S. trade with sub-Saharan Africa grew by more than 18% last year. For the second consecutive year, the growth in U.S. trade in sub-Sahara Africa outdistanced America's overall growth in world trade. No one who has sought to invest or trade in Africa will deny that doing so has been difficult, but few would deny that the many opportunities exist. U.S. trade with Africa amounts to only about one percent of total U.S. trade and U.S. investment there totals less than one percent of all U.S. direct investment overseas. This, despite the fact that roughly forty per cent of all America exports now go to developing countries where the greatest growth in U.S. trade and exports in recent years has taken place. Finally, Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I am introducing this bill to stimulate interest and to encourage serious debate in the Senate on re-orienting U.S. policy towards Africa. Without question, we have a genuine interest in Africa that is only now being recognized. Enactment of this bill will help create an environment in which the private sector will become more fully engaged in the economic development and growth and political modernization of Africa. If that happens, it will be very much in the interest of the United States. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take note of this bill, consider its merits, explore the growing potential for U.S. exports and investment and consider the prospects for revising and broadening our overall relationship with sub-Sahara Africa. If we do so, our country will be a major economic and security beneficiary. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act be printed in full in the Record.