Richard Lugar

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.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I voted in committee to support the CFE Flank Document and the accompanying resolution of ratification that was reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Relations last week. Let me review a few of the issues that commanded committee concern. The Flank Document and Relations Between Russia and Former Soviet States During committee consideration of the CFE Flank Document, members on both sides of the aisle voiced concern over United States willingness to serve as an intermediary in negotiations between Russia and other former Soviet states to secure permission for temporary Russian troop deployments on their soil or for revision of the Russian treaty-limited equipment quotas set in the 1992 Tashkent Agreement. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of section IV of the Flank Document restate Russia's right to seek such permission ``by means of free negotiations and with full respect for the sovereignty of the States Parties involved''. A United States note passed to the Russians, according to Undersecretary of State Lynn Davis, said that the United States was ``prepared to facilitate or act as an intermediary for a successful outcome in'' such negotiations. United States officials state that Washington's offer to serve as an intermediary between Russia and other Tashkent Agreement signatories was for the purpose of leveling the playing field between Russia and smaller countries. Many of the conditions in the resolution of ratification seek to bind the executive branch to its asserted purpose.

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 Wednesday, June 18, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to receive testimony from Secretary Glickman and U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky regarding U.S. export trade.

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, June 5, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to receive testimony regarding contaminated strawberries in school lunches. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in urging the authorities in Beijing to provide immediate medical care to Wei Jingsheng and to end his prolonged incarceration in Chinese prison. Granting these requests would not only be an act of official compassion but it would also signal to others that the introduction of economic liberalism--and the remarkable economic advancements that it spawned-- is leading to improvements in internal freedom, human rights practices, and the quality of life in the People's Republic of China. Responding to our modest requests would be a positive sign that China, as it seeks to be more fully integrated into the global system, is increasingly self-confident about itself, about the image it projects to the rest of the world and about the role it intends to play in the world. Wei Jingsheng has spent the better part of his adult life in detention, in jail, and in labor camps. Most of his past 18 years have been spent in solitary confinement in unusually harsh conditions. His health has deteriorated badly and he is deprived of most normal privileges available to political prisoners. Those conditions and these deprivations would have broken the spirit of defiance in most human beings. Not so for Wei Jingsheng. Wei Jingsheng's remarkable prison letters to the Chinese leadership will be published today, May 13. His book, ``The Courage to Stand Alone: Letters from Prison and Other Writings,'' is a splendid testament to the yearning for democracy by a political dissident who has never experienced true freedom in a land and country that has never experienced true democracy or anything approximating an open society. His writings speak to us about the need for democratic reform at a time when China exhibits little internal visible dissent. There is now no visible political dissent in China because political dissidents have either gone into exile, are in prison, or have redirected their energies in new-found entrepreneurial enterprises. Mr. President, we are here today not only to laud the publication of Wei Jingsheng's book of letters or to urge Beijing to discard its harsh treatment of its leading political dissident, we are here to honor a true democrat. We should honor true democrats and democracy anywhere, and under any circumstances. We can and should promote human rights practices and democracy abroad just as we pursue other important national interests. Our foreign policy must express both our values and our interests. That is why we must continue to support the development of political and economic reforms abroad while endorsing those democracy-promoting programs undertaken by such non-government organizations as the National Endowment for Democracy [NED] and the Center for Democracy. Wei Jingsheng's current prison term expires in the year 2009 but his health is reportedly so poor that he may not survive until then. Keeping Wei Jingsheng in prison under such difficult conditions would be a permanent stain on China's claim that it is misunderstood by the rest of the world. To release this man and other prisoners of conscience would bring good will to China and assure the outside world that China enjoys the self-confidence to change. I join with my colleagues in the hope that Wei Jingsheng will be released from prison in the very near future. Thank you.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I believe that is a constructive idea. The committee will review not only the issues raised by the Senator from South Dakota and our other colleagues, but potentially also other issues relating to rural credit, including the effectiveness of certain USDA loan guarantee programs, an issue brought to my attention recently by several community bankers.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am sensitive to the concerns expressed by my colleagues. At the same time, significant reforms were made to USDA lending programs by the 1996 FAIR Act. I want to maintain the integrity of these reforms, and therefore believe that any measures which would substantially alter the basic terms of the lending programs should be subject to review by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

Mr. LUGAR. I concur with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Harrison Eiteljorg, a dear friend and longtime patron of the arts, who passed away last week at the age of 93. This afternoon, friends and family will gather in Indianapolis to remember Harrison and to celebrate his remarkable life. Harrison Eiteljorg was the founder and chief benefactor of the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art. This museum, located in downtown Indianapolis, houses his extensive collection of paintings and sculptures of the American West, with works by Frederic Remington, Georgia O'Keefe, Albert Bierstadt, and Thomas Hart Benton. It also contains his collection of Indian artifacts, with costumes, weapons, ceremonial objects and masks representing tribes of the Midwest, Plains, and Northwest coast. The Eiteljorg collection is perhaps the finest of its type anywhere in the world. Harrison Eiteljorg found absolute joy in the pursuit, discovery and acquisition of paintings and sculptures of the American West. Early in his life, business interests took Eiteljorg on frequent and extended trips to the West and Southwest. His interest in Indian artifacts and crafts developed at this time, together with his attraction to Western painting and sculpture. Eiteljorg began assembling his collections in the late 1940's. His first piece was Olaf Weighorst's Cutting Horse, which depicts a cowboy about to rope a steer. As his collection grew, Eiteljorg tried to meet many of the artists whose works he purchased, in an effort to share a few moments of their lives. And, he gave his encouragement and financial support to several young artists, enabling them to devote full time and attention to their art. Harrison Eiteljorg was also a supporter and active member of the Indianapolis Museum of Art. He became a member of the IMA Board of Trustees in 1962, served as board chairman from 1974 to 1983, and had been honorary chairman since 1987. In the 1980's, Eiteljorg made a gift to the IMA of more than 1,000 pieces from his collection of African and oceanic art. As a former mayor of Indianapolis, I understand the importance of citizens being involved in their local communities. Harrison Eiteljorg's strong sense of civic responsibility and duty helped make Indianapolis a showcase for art and culture. Harrison Eiteljorg's personal commitment to preserving the heritage of American Indians and the evolution of the West is to be commended. While he will be sorely missed, his important collections will continue to educate and enchant visitors to the Eiteljorg Museum and the Indianapolis Museum of Art for many years to come.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. The condition that we move to strike, condition 29, would prohibit the United States from ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention until the President certifies that Russia has done the following: Ratified the CWC, complied with the 1990 bilateral destruction agreement, fulfilled its obligations under the 1989 Wyoming memorandum of understanding, and ceased all chemical weapons activities. Mr. President, two arguments against this condition prevailed, at least on the last vote that we had. I cite the first important argument is simply that this is a killer amendment. Senators need to know that a vote to leave this in the convention effectively terminates the convention. Senators cannot have it both ways. I simply indicate, in his very important statement, the majority leader, Senator Lott, referencing a particular condition that he found appealing, indicated it was not a killer amendment. But, in fact, this one is a killer amendment. Therefore, there is a crucial reason to vote to strike it. Second, Mr. President, once again we are talking about American leadership. It is in our interest, clearly, to get Russia's attention to the chemical weapons problem. We have decided unilaterally in this country that chemical weapons are not useful to us in our defense, largely because we cannot necessarily guard our own troops against the fallout and against the problems they create. So we are destroying them. Russia always had greater stocks than we have. They still do. It has been in our interest to work with the Russians. In the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act, so-called Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act, we have worked with the Russians in a first instance to assist them in the techniques of destroying chemical weapons in Russia. There are seven very large sites that need to be dealt with. We are dealing now with the Russians at the first. Mr. President, I speak today from a personal experience of last October when it was my privilege to accompany the then Secretary of Defense, William Perry, and my colleagues Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Joe Lieberman, in a visit to Russia, specifically to the Defense Department of Russia and to military persons involved in weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps equally importantly, Mr. President, it was my privilege to go with my colleagues from America to the Russian Duma. On that particular day, our first attempt was to attempt to gain some understanding by members of the Duma about the importance of the START II treaty and its ratification. While we were there, we visited with the relevant committees comparable to our Foreign Relations and our Armed Services Committee about the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Russians--in what we characterize as the Russian administration, the executive branch, and the legislative branch, the Duma--made identical points to us, that the START II treaty was coupled in consideration with the expansion of NATO. They said this is a political issue. These two are joined together. With regard to the Chemical Weapons Convention, they made the clear distinction that it was not political, it was not involved with either NATO or START II or other arrangements. As a matter of fact, they perceived it was in the interests of Russia to ratify the treaty. They also pointed out that Russia has very little money, that at this particular point in history Russian taxes are not being paid with regularity. The soldiers are not being paid, or at least their paychecks are often delayed. As a result, they pointed out that arms control expenses were a very great problem for them. I think we understand that. That is not a sufficient reason for Russia to dodge its responsibilities. But it was a reason offered as to why they had postponed consideration. In addition, Mr. President, they have postponed consideration because despite our leadership from the very beginning, our leadership to destroy our own chemical weapons, then to try to sign up all the nations of the world to destroy theirs, and to make this an international law project, the Russians read our press and they understood that we had had difficulty last December in ratifying this convention. So they simply were curious as to whether we were serious now. Well, we are, Mr. President. I simply say that the question that is before the Senate should not be delay or perhaps failure to ratify the treaty, because we are waiting on Russia. Our leadership is imperative. We are the country that is leading the world. We are the country that is leading Chemical Weapons Convention matters. Our citizens of the United States take that seriously. Mr. President, a large majority of Americans want us to act. They believe the U.S. Government ought to do everything possible, and they recognize, as do most Senators, that this convention is unlikely to get that job done very swiftly but they do recognize it is an advance, it is a constructive step. To offer as a reason why we would not proceed that we are waiting for Russia, or hoping that two agreements that are specified in the condition might somehow come to fulfillment is to miss the entire point of the leadership that is involved and the persuasion we must have. Mr. President, I believe it is important, as soon as we ratify this convention, for the President of the United States to press on President Yeltsin his responsibility to gain ratification. At the Helsinki summit meeting recently, President Yeltsin assured our President he would offer that leadership. He assured our President he understood the responsibility of the Russians. He also asked our President to do his duty to help get the job done here. In fairness, our President has been fulfilling that responsibility, as did Senator Dole yesterday, as have President Bush and President Ford, as they have come forward as Presidents who understand, and as the majority leader understands. In his statement today, he mentioned one reason for voting for this treaty is the fact that two Republican administrations have made a commitment. An American word means something. Our leadership has continuity and staying power. It does not flip one way or another, depending upon Iraq or Russia. Mr. President, I simply say, once again, American leadership is at stake. We are looking at a killer amendment. This condition must be struck. I ask Senators to vote aye when the roll is called. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. Mr. President, the objective of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the debate that we are involved in now, is leadership, a question of leadership by our country. We can take a look at all the exceptions and the negative views, but the very positive force I think we want to stress in framing this issue is, the United States of America, our statesmen, President Ronald Reagan, George Bush, now President Bill Clinton, and many who have worked with them in the Armed Forces and in statecraft, recognize that our country has a very substantial problem in the world; namely, that of chemical weapons. We came to a determination on our part that these weapons were unreliable, unstable, dangerous, and so dangerous, as a matter of fact, that we did not wish to employ them--we wished to destroy them. We have been doing that as a nation. Our dilemma is that other nations, primarily Russia, with substantial stores much greater than our own, but a variety of other nations, purportedly have these weapons. Our problem is to convince other nations in the world that we all ought to be about the task of ending production of these weapons, ending possession, storage, ending any vestige of them. Now, in order to do that, we have to bring other nations into this with us. Therefore, we have offered leadership now for many years. We have convinced 74 other nations that have already ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention that they ought to be with us in this quest. I make that point at the outset, Mr. President, because the motion before the Senate is to strike a condition added, at least to this treaty, that would say we ought to forgo our leadership, we ought to really forget what our objective has been for years. I presume we ought to forget we are in the process of destroying all of our own chemical weapons and simply hope that others might proceed. As a matter of fact, if we do not ratify this convention this evening, others will proceed, but they will proceed without us. Our diplomacy with Russia will be severely impaired. As a result, even though we are working with Russia now--as a matter of fact, to help them destroy chemical weapons--through reasons the world will find hard to understand, we will have denied the very treaty we have asked others to join us in. It makes no sense. Let me say with all due respect to those who formulated the idea that we should not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention unless the so- called rogue states--named as North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and Iraq--join, must have really stayed up nights trying to think of some way to throw us off course. I presume they felt that our antipathy to some of these states would be such that we would say if they are not going to be a part of it, we ought not to be a part of it, we ought to simply go after them in a unilateral way. Let me examine that for a moment, Mr. President. The Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Massachusetts have talked about law, about legitimacy. As a matter of fact, our Nation does have the mobility to be an enforcer. In the event we feel our security is threatened, our President might, in fact, consider a military action against a nation that offered a security threat to us. But let us examine the implications if our President decides to do this. If he is going to act unilaterally without benefit of international law--and international law does count because other nations understand the implications of that cooperation and the binding that brings--if we are going to contemplate solo strikes without benefit of international law, then we will have to think about overflight rights, about the problems of our pilots if our aircraft are down, about a number of implications in which we count upon cooperation of nation-states. International law does count. It makes a difference that there is a law against this, and that the United States acts with other nations and with their backing to enforce that, and that we shall have to do. Much has been said about lack of military will or lack of political will, but, Mr. President, I have seen very little of that in this Chamber during this debate. We are serious about this. Mr. President, let me add just as a topical matter, because the Members of the Senate who have been watching local television at least in the last half-hour appreciate that in northwest Washington, in the downtown area near the B'nai B'rith headquarters, a vial of chemical material or biological material is present that authorities of the police and fire department and special persons in the Washington, DC, area have now picked up this material, and people in the B'nai B'rith headquarters are being decontaminated. A suggestion is that it may be anthrax, a very deadly biological weapon. It was not long ago on this floor, Mr. President, that the Nunn- Lugar-Domenici Act was debated and we talked then in terms of attempting to bring Department of Defense resources into play with the cities of this country--Washington, DC, being prominent among them, Atlanta, GA, Denver, CO, and 23 other cities have been named--so that in the event there should be anthrax, which was specifically mentioned in the debate, we were prepared to move. That is leadership, Mr. President. We saw the threat and we prepared to move upon it. We have done so. Now, we will do so with regard to the international scene. But the treaty gives us the basis of international law. To suggest for a moment, Mr. President, we ought to be deterred from our leadership by whether Iraq joins, whether Iran is involved, whether North Korea should ever be involved, is to stretch credibility really to the breaking point. These nations are irrelevant to our membership and our leadership. They are irrelevant to our standing for international law and our ability to act, and to act decisively. That must be our standard, Mr. President. With imagination, one will think of all sorts of hobgoblins that can be thrown up to make an interesting debate, but debate is leadership, and debate is decisive political will, and the debate is our ability to convince other nations of the world they should come with us, that we are reliable, that we stay the course, that our word is good, administration after administration. Mr. President, this is the reason we should vote to strike this amendment, this condition, from the convention immediately, decisively. It has been a point, clearly, a parliamentary procedure, and that our failure to do so, as a matter of fact, jeopardizes the entire treaty. It is improbable, if not impossible, our Nation would ever join, would ever follow through on our leadership, if we were to wait upon states that are irrelevant to the whole proposition. I conclude, Mr. President, by saying obviously, threats in those states are not relevant. We must be decisive. We need going for us international law, enhancement of our intelligence that the intrusive inspections and all of the trade accounts will give to us, so that when we strike, we will strike accurately and completely and bring the security to the world that this treaty attempts to promote.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LUGAR. I would like to ask if he would include Kenneth Myers and Kenny Myers, on my staff and the staff of the Intelligence Committee, who have been invaluable.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the condition we are discussing, all Senators by this time, I am certain, understand, requires the President to certify that the parties to the convention have agreed to strike article X of the convention and amend article XI of the convention. That means, in simple language, that the United States would simply say a treaty negotiated by 160 countries, now ratified by, apparently, 74-- unilaterally, we simply knock out article X and severely amend article XI. As all Senators who have addressed this will admit, this means effectively the end of the treaty, at least in terms of our participation, because, clearly, the other nations of the world are under no obligation to renegotiate the entire treaty at that point. This is the reason it is strictly a killer amendment. It simply knocks out material parts of the convention. If those who are advocating this had a point, there might be reason to pause at this point and not ratify the treaty. But by and large it appears to me that most of us want to ratify the treaty and we do so with assurance, first of all, that as a country we have our wits about us. There is no possibility this President, the next President, Members of the Senate, any responsible American is going to furnish material to countries that are rogue states that are going to jeopardize our security. The treaty does not call for that, as again and again we pointed out. This was a generous interpretation that the Iranians gave because, at least from that standpoint, they would like to have the material. But why we should ever be that gullible escapes me. There is no mandate to give anything away. Those of us who advocate the treaty have been saying we will not. The President of the United States has been asked for assurance, and he said that he will not. He has sent letters to the majority leader and to individual Senators affirming this in any number of ways. Furthermore, the question arises, ``Fair enough, Mr. President, or Mr. Senator, if you will not give things away to the Iranians, how about the French or the Germans or some other nation? Perhaps they will do so.'' As Secretary Cohen replied on Meet The Press on Sunday--and Secretary Albright, likewise, who was sitting beside him responded to this question--they pointed out that is a very good reason for us to be around the table with the other countries from the beginning, setting the rules. If Senators are seriously concerned that other countries are going to give away the store, we had better be there to help restrain them, to offer our leadership. It comes back to that, our leadership. We were the ones that started the whole process--President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton. We are the ones who had a good idea: If we were getting rid of our chemical weapons, others ought to get rid of theirs. This is our treaty, as Secretary Albright said, ``Made in the USA.'' And we ought to be there to set the rules, to be the governing board, to assert our leadership at the moment that it is crucial after April 29. So I say simply to those who have qualms about articles X and XI, we are not going to give away the store, any of us, as patriotic Americans. We would like to be at the table to make sure no one else entertains that thought. But I say again, whether we are there or not, the treaty is going to happen after April 29. We better be there and, hopefully, with affirmative votes to strike this fifth situation we have discussed this evening, this fifth condition, and for final passage, to vote for the treaty. These are very important for the foreign policy and security of our country.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for 17 years Chuck Conner has been my top agriculture and nutrition advisor, and for the last 10 years has been Republican staff director of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Chuck is departing the Senate to become president of the Corn Refiners Association. Chuck has ushered four farm bills through the Senate, including last year's historic FAIR Act that ended 60 years of Federal production controls. Chuck's work can be seen in moving American agriculture to the free market, thoughtfully downsizing the Department of Agriculture, reforming hundreds of USDA field offices, making food safer through pesticide regulations, saving and then reforming the farm credit system, updating commodity futures legislation, and landmark reform of the nutrition sections in last year's welfare reform bill. Chuck was with me on my Indiana farm June 28, 1985, when then Secretary of Agriculture Jack Block and I announced the first Conservation Reserve Program. Today that program is still a vital cornerstone of soil and water conservation in America, and the extension of the program last year was part of the most significant environmental legislation in the 104th Congress. Chuck has been involved every step of the way. He has combined a strong academic background, with an agricultural economics degree from the Purdue University School of Agriculture, and practical knowledge of how programs are implemented. His family continues to operate an 1100-acre corn and soybean farm in Benton County, IN. Chuck and his wife Dru maintain a herd of 100 registered Angus cows in Whitley County, IN. Chuck and Dru met in the early 1980's while working in my office. My wife, Char, and I have enjoyed watching the growth of their four children: Katie, Ben, Andrew, and Emily. I will miss Chuck's counsel, which Agriculture Committee members have trusted and respected. He now takes his leadership skills to agribusiness. On the committee he has hired, trained, and developed a talented staff that will be led by his longtime deputy Randy Green, maintaining continuity in service. I speak for majority and minority members of the Agriculture Committee in wishing Chuck Conner, an extraordinarily talented and loyal friend, the very best.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for a remarkable speech in favor of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and for his leadership. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, for a very important announcement. I have in front of me the statement given by Senator Dole at the White House. I point out the context of this statement was a meeting with Senator Dole and President Clinton, in which these two statesmen came together this morning for a very important purpose, namely to say to America, in a unanimous way, the Chemical Weapons Convention is important for our security. Senator Dole stated: Last September, the Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, asked me to express my opinion on the Chemical Weapons Convention. In my response, I raised concerns about the Chemical Weapons Convention and expressed hope that the President and the Senate work together to ensure that the treaty is effectively verifiable and genuinely global. They have, and as a result, 28 conditions to the Senate's Resolution of Ratification have been agreed to. These 28 agreed conditions address major concerns. I commend Senator Lott, Senator Helms, Senator Lugar, and many other former colleagues, as well as President Clinton and administration officials for their constructive efforts, is it perfect--no--but I believe there are now adequate safeguards to protect American interests. We should keep in mind that the United States is already destroying its chemical weapons in accordance with legislation passed more than 10 years ago. The CWC would require all other parties to destroy their stockpiles by April 2007. In addition, the Administration has agreed to a number of provisions dealing with rogue states that remain outside the treaty. The Senator attaches a letter from President Clinton to Senator Dole dated April 22, 1997, outlining those provisions. And then Senator Dole continues: I also understand there is a possibility of an additional agreement with respect to sharing of information. If so, it would further strengthen the treaty. I understand that even with all the added safeguards, not every Senator, for their own good reasons, will support ratification. As a member of the Senate, I supported the START I, START II, INF, and CFE treaties because they met the crucial tests of effective verification, real reductions, and stability. If I were presently in the Senate, I would vote for ratification of the CWC because of the many improvements agreed to. Those who may still have concerns can look to Article XVI, which allows withdrawal from the treaty on 90 days notice if it fails to serve America's vital interests. There is little doubt in my mind that if this convention increases proliferation of chemical weapons, it would lead to public outrage which would compel any President to act. The bottom line is that when it comes to America's security, we must maintain a strong national defense that is second to none. As the Senator has pointed out, we will have in front of the body this afternoon, first of all, all 33 conditions, including 5 that are killer amendments. We must vote those down. We will have, then, before us, 28 agreed amendments that Senator Dole has referenced. We should vote in favor of those, and then proceed in this debate to strike the other 5. We are here today to discuss the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I say to my colleagues that, in performing its constitutional responsibilities with respect to treaties and international agreements, the Senate has to reach a judgment as to whether, on balance, U.S. acceptance of the obligations contained in the treaty serves the national interests of the United States. That phrase, on balance, is important, because in arriving at our judgment, we have to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of a treaty's provisions and decide whether the advantages or benefits outweigh any real or potential costs. If one believes that the benefits outweigh the costs, one will write and support one kind of resolution of ratification that consents to the treaty while utilizing conditional language to clarify or minimize perceived weaknesses. However, if one believes that the costs of U.S. participation outweigh the benefits, one will write and support a very different kind of resolution of ratification. It is my belief that the Chemical Weapons Convention, on balance, is in the national security interests of the United States, and thus I believe the Senate should ratify a resolution of ratification which allows the United States to deposit its instrument of ratification and become a state-party to the CWC. As Senator Biden pointed out, this international treaty was negotiated by Presidents Reagan and Bush and was signed by Secretary of State Eagleburger in January 1993--just before George Bush left office. Senator Biden was generous in pointing out that these were two Republican Presidents, Secretary Eagleburger was a Republican Secretary of State. It is appropriate that Senator Dole, as Republican candidate for President, join with President Clinton today, once again affirming that the CWC is in the best national interests of our country.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Is the order that the Senate should recess at 12:30? Has that been adopted earlier?

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce, by request, on behalf of Senator Biden and myself, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by the United States on January 13, 1993, and was submitted by President Clinton to the United States Senate on November 23, 1993, for its advice and consent to ratification. The Chemical Weapons Convention contains a number of provisions that require implementing legislation to give them effect within the United States. These include: international inspections of U.S. facilities; declarations by U.S. chemical and related industry; and establishment of a ``National Authority'' to serve as the liaison between the United States and the international organization established by the Chemical Weapons Convention and States Parties to the Convention. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this Implementation Act that we are introducing at the request of the administration be printed in the Record together with the transmitted letter to the President of the Senate from ACDA Director John D. Holum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce, by request, on behalf of Senator Biden and myself, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by the United States on January 13, 1993, and was submitted by President Clinton to the United States Senate on November 23, 1993, for its advice and consent to ratification. The Chemical Weapons Convention contains a number of provisions that require implementing legislation to give them effect within the United States. These include: international inspections of U.S. facilities; declarations by U.S. chemical and related industry; and establishment of a ``National Authority'' to serve as the liaison between the United States and the international organization established by the Chemical Weapons Convention and States Parties to the Convention. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this Implementation Act that we are introducing at the request of the administration be printed in the Record together with the transmitted letter to the President of the Senate from ACDA Director John D. Holum.

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, April 24, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to receive testimony regarding U.S. agricultural exports.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce two pieces of legislation aimed at minimizing the burden of the estate and gift tax on Americans. The first would provide Americans with a powerful estate tax planning tool by raising the tax-free gift limit to $25,0000 from the current $10,000. The second bill would correct a longstanding agricultural problem that effectively limits the ability of farmers to rent farmland that they have inherited to other family members. The Senate Agriculture Committee held hearings at the end of February to study the impact of estate and gift taxes on farmers. As a farmer and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I understand the far- reaching effect that the inheritance tax has on rural America. Testimony revealed that farmers are six times more likely to pay estate taxes than other Americans due to the capital-intensive nature of the farm business. Commercial farms, those core farms that produce 85 percent of the Nation's agricultural products, may be 15 times more likely to pay inheritance taxes than other individuals. As the average age of farmers approaches 60 years, a quarter of all farmers could confront the inheritance tax over the next 20 years. I have already introduced three comprehensive bills on this subject-- the first bill would eliminate the inheritance tax entirely; the second phases it out gradually; and the third raises the unified credit exemption to $5 million from the current $600,000 level. By raising the level of exempted property to this amount, the Federal Government would relieve 96 percent of the Americans who currently file estate tax returns from this burden. Although repeal of this tax ultimately is the best course of action, I understand that sufficient momentum may not exist to achieve this end. In the mean time, Congress should provide Americans with estate planning alternatives that help facilitate the passing of their estates to the next generation. These two bills further this goal. The first bill would simply raise the yearly nontaxable gift amount from the current $10,000 to $25,000. Congress unified the estate and gift titles of the Tax Code in 1976, subjecting a decedent's lifetime taxable gifts and taxable estate to one rate structure. Under current law, the first $10,000 of gifts made by a donor during a calendar year to any individual are not included in the donor's taxable gift amount for that year. Nor does this $10,000 gift lower the decedent's unified credit exemption, which allows each individual to pass on $600,000 of assets without incurring estate and gift taxes. Over the years, inflation has eroded this $10,000 amount, which has not been increased since 1982. Under my proposal, individuals could give $25,000 each year without estate and gift tax consequence. Through the current practice known as ``gift splitting,'' a couple could give up to $50,000 tax free each year. Raising the gift exemption amount would be a positive first step for Congress to take in helping with the transfer of family businesses and farms to the next generation. My second bill would correct a longstanding agricultural problem in the Tax Code that disqualifies farm heirs from receiving special use valuation for estate tax purposes because they cash leased the farm property to another member of the family. Section 2032A of the Tax Code provides heirs the option of valuing qualified farm property at its current use rather than valuing the property at its highest and most developed use. If the heir who inherited the property ceases to use it in its qualified use within 10 years, an additional recapture tax is imposed to regain the benefit of the special use valuation. Some tax courts have held that the cash leasing of the property to members of the decedent's family is not a qualified use, thus triggering the recapture tax provision. Congress partially fixed this problem in 1988 in regard to spouses, but other qualified heirs remain unable to cash lease the property to members of the family. My legislation would correct this wrinkle in the law by allowing qualified heirs to cash lease the inherited special use property to members of the decedent's family or members of the spouse's family without triggering the recapture tax. This bill is retroactive to December 31, 1976, when section 2032A was enacted into law. Congress intended to grant family businesses and farms some level of protection from the estate and gift tax through section 2032A, and farmers have relied on this provision for estate planning purposes over the years. During the Senate Agriculture hearings on estate taxes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture testified that the special use valuation reduced the number of taxable estates and the total Federal estate and gift taxes for all farm estates by about one-third. The American Farmland Trust gave witness to the fact that more than half of farm production in the United States occurs in counties that are metropolitan or adjacent to metropolitan areas. Without special use valuation for estate tax purposes, much of our Nation's agricultural land would be valued as strip malls or housing developments, rather than as farmland. Lessening the gross estate through section 2032A allows the next generation of farmers to maintain this land in agricultural production and helps slow urban sprawl. My legislation would make this good provision better. Mr. President, I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting these two estate and gift tax initiatives that provide Americans with means for protecting their lifetime of savings and hard work. I ask unanimous consent that both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Lt. Col. Archie Galloway for his dedicated military service to our country. Colonel Galloway is retiring on May 31, 1997 from active service in the U.S. Army after serving for nearly 29 years as an infantry officer and soldier. I came to know Colonel Galloway personally during his last 3\1/2\ years of military service as a staff officer in the Army's Senate liaison office, as he arranged for and accompanied me on a number of key trips around the globe on critical national issues of defense and foreign affairs. Colonel Galloway was born in Baltimore, MD, on April 12, 1947. He enlisted in the Army in 1967 as a private and was later commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1969 from Infantry Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA. Throughout his military career, he consistently distinguished himself during times of peace and war, in both command and staff positions. He volunteered for duty in Vietnam as a Vietnamese ranger adviser and was decorated with the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star and the Bronze Star Medal. During Operation Just Cause, he served as the chief of current operations in the joint task force and earned at the end of his tour in the 7th Infantry Division the Legion of Merit. His other notable military awards include the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Meritorious Service Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal, Army General Staff Identification Badge, Ranger, Airborne, and Air Assault Badges. Colonel Galloway's professionalism and leadership as a military officer have earned him the respect and admiration of his soldiers, fellow officers, and Members of the U.S. Congress. He is known for his integrity, compassion, and ability to inspire men and women from all walks of life. It is these qualities that will assure his success as a new legislative assistant for Senator Jeff Sessions. I salute Arch Galloway for his distinguished military record and wish him and his wonderful wife and great baker, the former Nancy Carol Brendel, many years of happiness and good health in his retirement.

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, April 17, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding crop and revenue insurance.

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 the nominations of Velma Ann Jorgensen of Garrison, IA, to be a member of the Farm Credit Administration Board of Directors, and Lowell Lee Junkins, of Waukee, IA, to be a member of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Board of Directors on Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 2:30 p.m. in SR-328A. committee on small business

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is with great privilege that I rise today to honor Charles H. Webb, an outstanding administrator and musician who is retiring after 24 years of service as Dean of the Indiana University School of Music in Bloomington, IN. Since his appointment in 1973, the Indian University School of Music has enjoyed a world-wide reputation for excellence. The Indiana University School of Music has been ranked No. 1 among schools of music in the country, and is the first and only school to bring an opera performance to the stage of the Metropolitan Opera in New York. Dean Webb's accomplishments have been hailed by Indiana University and the State of Indiana. He received the Thomas Hart Benton Medal from Indiana University in 1987 and the Governor's Award for the Arts in 1989. He is also a two-time recipient of the Sagamore of the Wabash award, which is the highest award given by the State of Indiana for meritorious service. In addition to his responsibilities at Indiana University, Charles Webb has maintained an active performance schedule as a conductor, pianist, and organist. Hailed as one of today's finest accompanists, he has appeared with some of the world's best musicians. He currently serves as the organist for the First United Methodist Church in Bloomington, IN. Charles Webb's contributions to the art of music and his support for education will continue long after his retirement, as his students enrich our lives with performances in orchestras, bands, opera, and theater companies, and schools around the world. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating him for his years of tireless service, and in wishing him and family all the best in the future.