Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of young Indiana students who have shown great educative achievement. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the winners of the 1996-97 Eigth Grade Youth Essay Contest which I sponsored in association with the Indiana Farm Bureau and Bank One of Indianapolis. These students have displayed strong writing abilities and have proven themselves to be outstanding young Hoosier scholars. I submit their names for the Congressional Record because they demonstrate the capabilities of today's students and are fine representatives of our Nation. This year, Hoosier students wrote on the theme, ``Farming the New Frontier.'' Students were encouraged to consider and creatively express the role of Indiana agriculture in our country and in the world marketplace. I would like to submit for the Record the winning essays of Shannon McArtor of Monroe County and Kyle Roth of Pulaski County. As State winners of the Youth Essay Contest, these two outstanding students are being recognized on Friday, March 7, 1997, during a visit to our Nation's Capitol. The essays are as follows: Farming the New Frontier (By Shannon McArtor) Vegetables that grow in water? Seedless watermelon? Miniature cobs of corn? Hearty soybeans? American farmers are boldly going where no one has gone before! Biotechnology is going through major changes that will affect our lives as we approach the 21st century. Biotechnology will help farmers grow more, and better, crops such as corn, beans, alfalfa, and wheat. The future is bright for forage producers, due in part to new technology that allows industries to grow bigger, tastier, and better vegetables and grains. Biotechnology has created a hybrid of soybean that can withstand certain harmful herbicides. The STS gene protects soybeans from sulfonylurea herbicides only. Soybean varieties with resistance to certain herbicides are now available. The farmer has a choice in selecting programs to control weeds. Because of advances in biotechnology there are corn hybrids that can resist the harsh substance called glufosinate- ammonium which is the active ingredient in New Liberty herbicide. Biotechnology has also helped to find hybrids that can resist the European corn borer. These hybrids produce a gene that contains a protein that protects these plants from damage caused by ECB (European corn borer). This gene originated from a bacterium and originally placed in the corn inbred line using techniques of biotechnology. The addition of B+ gene enhances protection of crops because the plants will achieve levels of insect resistance which are not possible using traditional breeding methods. These new discoveries in farming will keep our nation healthy in more than one way. It will give us an ample supply of corn and beans on less acres. It will protect the vitamins contained in grains and vegetables thus providing better foods to eat. Biotechnology is going to make life better!

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, March 13, 1997 at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding the agriculture research systems structure, funding mechanisms, coordination and priority setting, and accountability. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 1997 at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding the agriculture research systems structure, funding mechanisms, coordination and priority setting, and accountability. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Tuesday, March 11, 1997 at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding the agriculture research systems structure, funding mechanisms, coordination and priority setting, and accountability. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

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, March 20, 1997 at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding the agriculture research systems structure, funding mechanisms, coordination and priority setting, and accountability.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will stop prisoners from getting food stamp benefits. My bill will assist States in implementing a program to ensure that prisoners are not counted as members or heads of food stamp households, thus either increasing the households' benefits or allowing an individual to illegally receive benefits in the prisoner's name. I was disturbed to read in the newspaper about a draft General Accounting Office report showing over $3 million in food stamp benefits being overpaid to households in which a member has been incarcerated. Current law prohibits prisoners from receiving food stamp benefits and requires that households notify their local welfare office of any changes in the makeup of the household. I am concerned to see that there is a breakdown in the system, allowing millions of dollars to be paid out illegally. Briefings by USDA's Food and Consumer Service and the General Accounting Office have confirmed that although a few States are performing computer matches of data on States' food stamp participants and verified inmates, most are not. All States should be doing these computer matches. This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to collect information from States already doing computer matches to prevent prisoners from receiving food stamp benefits, then evaluate, summarize, and disseminate this information to all States not later than 180 days after the bill's enactment. The Secretary must then provide the States with technical assistance to implement a computer matching system. The problem of prisoners illegally receiving Federal benefits is not limited to the Food Stamp Program. Another recently released General Accounting Office report shows that the Social Security Administration has made erroneous payments to prisoners who were incarcerated in the jail system at the time of the study. In response to this study, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 included language authorizing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to enter into agreements with institutions to prevent these erroneous payments. We should make a similar effort to prevent these erroneous payments in the Food Stamp program. The Food Stamp Program provides a safety net for millions of people. We cannot allow fraud and abuse to undermine the Food Stamp Program. Integrity is essential to ensure a program that can serve those in need. It is Congress' responsibility to play a role in ending fraud and abuse in all federally funded programs. This legislation is an important step in ending fraud and abuse in the Food Stamp Program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will stop prisoners from getting food stamp benefits. My bill will assist States in implementing a program to ensure that prisoners are not counted as members or heads of food stamp households, thus either increasing the households' benefits or allowing an individual to illegally receive benefits in the prisoner's name. I was disturbed to read in the newspaper about a draft General Accounting Office report showing over $3 million in food stamp benefits being overpaid to households in which a member has been incarcerated. Current law prohibits prisoners from receiving food stamp benefits and requires that households notify their local welfare office of any changes in the makeup of the household. I am concerned to see that there is a breakdown in the system, allowing millions of dollars to be paid out illegally. Briefings by USDA's Food and Consumer Service and the General Accounting Office have confirmed that although a few States are performing computer matches of data on States' food stamp participants and verified inmates, most are not. All States should be doing these computer matches. This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to collect information from States already doing computer matches to prevent prisoners from receiving food stamp benefits, then evaluate, summarize, and disseminate this information to all States not later than 180 days after the bill's enactment. The Secretary must then provide the States with technical assistance to implement a computer matching system. The problem of prisoners illegally receiving Federal benefits is not limited to the Food Stamp Program. Another recently released General Accounting Office report shows that the Social Security Administration has made erroneous payments to prisoners who were incarcerated in the jail system at the time of the study. In response to this study, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 included language authorizing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to enter into agreements with institutions to prevent these erroneous payments. We should make a similar effort to prevent these erroneous payments in the Food Stamp program. The Food Stamp Program provides a safety net for millions of people. We cannot allow fraud and abuse to undermine the Food Stamp Program. Integrity is essential to ensure a program that can serve those in need. It is Congress' responsibility to play a role in ending fraud and abuse in all federally funded programs. This legislation is an important step in ending fraud and abuse in the Food Stamp Program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to take a moment to recognize JALEX, the Japanese Language Exchange Program. Since its inception in 1992, the JALEX Program has made valuable educational contributions to students in the United States preparing to function in an increasingly global environment. There are few Americans who would dispute the importance of providing our young people with an education that will prepare them to function effectively in the world. It is the responsibility of our educational system to prepare them to be competitive and cooperative in this global environment. You will be pleased to know that this kind of preparation is happening through JALEX, a unique program funded by the Center for Global Partnership of the Japan Foundation and administered by the Laurasian Institution. JALEX is unlike many exchange programs because it is reciprocal, pairing novice teachers from Japan with mentor teachers of Japanese in the United States at the precollegiate level. The program is designed to mutually benefit teachers from Japan and teachers and students in the United States. JALEX began as a modest prototype serving 18 schools in 5 States and has grown to serve 76 schools and community organizations in 20 States, including 18 cities in my home State of Indiana. JALEX also operates in Washington, Oregon, Utah, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont. In the process of achieving its mission--enhancing Japanese language instruction in the United States and classroom experience for native Japanese teachers of Japanese-as-a-foreign-language study--the program also provides opportunities for meaningful cultural exchange for thousands of American citizens. Since 1985, the study of Japanese in United States schools has grown rapidly. Despite the comparative difficulty of Japanese and the longstanding appeal of Romance languages, interest in and demand for Japanese language instruction has continued to grow on a global scale. JALEX began in 1992 when President Bush and Prime Minister Miyazawa acknowledged the essential role of enhanced Japanese language training to advance global partnership between the two nations. During the Tokyo summit in May l996, President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto vowed to further promote exchange programs between young people of Japan and the United States as a means of strengthening this bilateral relationship. The Center for Global Partnership of the Japan Foundation and the Freeman Foundation should be applauded for their generous support of this program. Their support provides participating schools an invaluable resource of a native Japanese teaching assistant in the classroom as well as materials, stipends, and professional development opportunities for United States teachers. The approximate value of the annual benefits provided by the JALEX Program to each school is conservatively estimated at $30,000. The Japanese language programs would not be as strong without the support of JALEX. The program has also provided several JALEX participants-- teachers, administrators, and students--the opportunity to visit Japan. These activities are provided at no cost to local school districts and without U.S. Government tax dollars. Because of JALEX, our leaders of the next century, will be able to direct our Nation on a global scale with a greater sensitivity and awareness to cultural and national differences. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the JALEX Program for the contributions it has made toward fostering cultural understanding and respect.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to discuss the impact of estate taxes on farmers. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

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, March 5, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to review the U.S. Department of Agriculture's business plan and reorganization management.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 1997, at 10 a.m. in SD-G50. The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony regarding the school lunch and school breakfast programs. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

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, February 26, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR- 328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to discuss the impact of capital gains taxes on farmers. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I use today to introduce the Federal Surplus Property Donations Act. This bill corrects an oversight by allowing nonprofit charitable organizations that primarily serve low- income people, to be eligible to receive Federal surplus personal property. Under current law, Federal surplus property can be donated to State and local governments, schools, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations that serve the homeless. My bill would expand the eligibility to food banks, construction oriented charities, building material recycling warehouses, and similar nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that serve the poor. The bill does not give preference to these organizations, but simply adds them to the list of eligible recipients. Charities that provide food and shelter assistance are major contributors to the safety net for the poor. As we look to charities to provide these important services to our Nation's low-income population, it is reasonable that we include them as eligible to receive surplus property. Excess property can be used creatively by these groups to lower expenses, thereby allowing charities to become more efficient. These nonprofit charitable organizations serving the poor are in great need of materials and equipment to build and repair homes, store food items, and deliver goods and services to those in need. We have already acknowledged that nonprofit charities serving the homeless should be eligible to receive these goods. This bill would recognize those charitable institutions which are providing shelter, food, and services to low-income Americans who may not be homeless. Mr. President, this legislation would provide donated equipment and goods at lower costs than alternative approaches such as grants to charities. Furthermore, it is a wise use of moneys either paid in taxes or donated by generous citizens. Domestic charities will make good use of Federal surplus and invest moneys saved in expanded efforts to further help those in need. The bill has bipartisan support. Cosponsoring the bill with me today are the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Senator Tom Harkin, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy. In addition, I am pleased to say that my Indiana colleague in the House, Congressman Lee Hamilton, is introducing the same bill today. Mr. President, I have personally supported various food banks in Indiana over the years. I am now proud to introduce a bill that will assist them in their continued efforts of serving the poor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I use today to introduce the Federal Surplus Property Donations Act. This bill corrects an oversight by allowing nonprofit charitable organizations that primarily serve low- income people, to be eligible to receive Federal surplus personal property. Under current law, Federal surplus property can be donated to State and local governments, schools, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations that serve the homeless. My bill would expand the eligibility to food banks, construction oriented charities, building material recycling warehouses, and similar nonprofit tax-exempt organizations that serve the poor. The bill does not give preference to these organizations, but simply adds them to the list of eligible recipients. Charities that provide food and shelter assistance are major contributors to the safety net for the poor. As we look to charities to provide these important services to our Nation's low-income population, it is reasonable that we include them as eligible to receive surplus property. Excess property can be used creatively by these groups to lower expenses, thereby allowing charities to become more efficient. These nonprofit charitable organizations serving the poor are in great need of materials and equipment to build and repair homes, store food items, and deliver goods and services to those in need. We have already acknowledged that nonprofit charities serving the homeless should be eligible to receive these goods. This bill would recognize those charitable institutions which are providing shelter, food, and services to low-income Americans who may not be homeless. Mr. President, this legislation would provide donated equipment and goods at lower costs than alternative approaches such as grants to charities. Furthermore, it is a wise use of moneys either paid in taxes or donated by generous citizens. Domestic charities will make good use of Federal surplus and invest moneys saved in expanded efforts to further help those in need. The bill has bipartisan support. Cosponsoring the bill with me today are the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Senator Tom Harkin, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy. In addition, I am pleased to say that my Indiana colleague in the House, Congressman Lee Hamilton, is introducing the same bill today. Mr. President, I have personally supported various food banks in Indiana over the years. I am now proud to introduce a bill that will assist them in their continued efforts of serving the poor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on January 22, 1997, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry met and adopted the rules for the committee. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry rules be printed in the Record, as follows: Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to provide a more effective method of targeting available Federal funds to enhance safety at our Nation's most hazardous highway- rail grade crossings. I first introduced this measure during the 104th Congress following 2 years of work to address a pressing public safety problem occurring in Indiana and other rail-intensive States. It is my hope this important legislation will be given thoughtful and thorough consideration this year as Congress moves to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. It is unclear what the final program structure will look like, or what the specific Federal role will be in the transportation decisionmaking process. I will work this year to assure that the goals of this rail safety legislation are incorporated as part of an ISTEA reauthorization bill that creates a more streamlined, flexible Federal highway program to help States maintain safe, effective, and efficient transportation networks. In America today, several hundred people are killed and thousands more injured every year as a result of vehicle-train collisions at highway-rail grade crossings. A significant number of these accidents occur in rail-intensive States such as Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, California, and Texas. One quarter of the Nation's 168,000 public highway-rail grade crossings are located in these 5 States. They accounted for 38 percent of deaths and 32 percent of injuries caused by vehicle-train collisions nationwide during 1991-1993. My home State of Indiana ranks sixth in the Nation for number of total public grade crossings with about 6,700, and is annually among the top five States for numbers of accidents and fatalities caused by vehicle-train crashes. In 1994, I travelled across northern Indiana aboard a QSX-500 locomotive and witnessed what engineers see every day--motorists darting across the railroad tracks before an oncoming train. From this experience, and from my work to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings, I learned that engineering solutions, along with education and awareness about grade crossing safety, are key strategies that can effectively prevent grade crossing accidents. Responding to this disturbing national trend, I began working in 1993 with Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and with the Indiana Department of Transportation to address this serious safety problem. We worked to find solutions that would help Indiana and other States make better use of available funds to target the Nation's most hazardous rail crossings. The Federal Government has played an important role in helping States eliminate accidents and fatalities at public highway-rail intersections since passage of the Highway Safety Act by Congress in 1973. This act created the Rail-Highway Crossing Program, also known as the Section 130 Program. Since the program's inception, more than 28,000 improvement projects have been undertaken--from installation of warning gates, lights and bells, to pavement improvements and grade separation construction projects. During the 103d Congress, I introduced grade crossing safety legislation to restore States' discretion over millions of Federal highway dollars lost as a result of noncompliance with the Federal motorcycle helmet law. Indiana and other States affected by this law were prohibited from using a portion of their highway construction dollars to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings. I was pleased the Congress repealed the helmet law penalty in 1995 as part of the National Highway System designation legislation. States now have greater flexibility to use their highway dollars for improvements at rail crossings, and for other transportation priorities. In March 1994, Senator Coats and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a survey of rail safety programs in Indiana and other rail intensive States experiencing a high number of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings. Released in August 1995, the report ``Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad Crossing Safety'' evaluated the best uses of limited Federal funds for rail crossing safety, reviewed policy changes that help State and local governments address rail safety issues, and recommended strategies to encourage interagency and intergovernmental cooperation. The report found that in addition to States' efforts to reduce accidents and fatalities through emphasis on education programs, engineering solutions, and enforcement of traffic laws, changes to the Federal funding formulas would target highway funds to areas of greatest risk. Under, ISTEA, the Section 130 Program was continued--with a portion of the 10 percent of a State's STP safety funds dedicated to highway- rail crossing improvement and hazard elimination projects. The GAO reported that key indicators or ``risk factors'' used to assess rail-grade crossing safety are not taken into account when STP funds are distributed among States. The GAO outlined the Federal Highway Administration's [FHWA] work to review options for STP formula changes that adjust the current flat percentage allocation to include these risk factors. Applying these factors to the funding formula creates a more targeted and focused process that maximizes the effectiveness of Federal funds. The risk factors criteria considered by FHWA include a State's share of the national total for number of public crossings, number of public crossings with passive warning devices, total number of accidents, and total number of fatalities occurring as a result of vehicle-train collisions at highway-rail grade crossings. For example, while Indiana received 3.4 percent of section 130 funds in fiscal year 1995, the Hoosier State experienced 6.1 percent of the Nation's accidents and 5.9 percent of the fatalities as a result of vehicle-train collisions from 1991 to 1993. In addition, Indiana has about 4 percent of the Nation's public rail crossings. Preliminary estimates of STP apportionments under a risk-based apportionment formula indicate Indiana's share of section 130 funds could increase by 49 percent, from the fiscal year 1997 level of $4.9 to $7.3 million. Overall, about 21 States would receive a substantial increase in section 130 funds for grade crossing improvements, including: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. While the Indiana Department of Transportation [INDOT] spends over $10 million a year to improve highway-rail grade crossings, a 49- percent increase in section 130 funds would allow INDOT and other State departments of transportation additional resources to improve hazardous highway-rail grade crossings. The Formula Enhancement Act addresses the allocation problem by adjusting the funding formula for the STP to include an apportionment of funds to States for the section 130 Program based on a 3-year average of these risk factors. I want to express my appreciation to the FHWA and to the Federal Railroad Administration for their valuable assistance in preparing this legislation. This legislation will help improve the way the Federal Government targets existing resources to enhance safety on our Nation's highways and along our rail corridors. This legislation does not call for new Federal spending, but rather for a more equitable and effective distribution of existing highway funds to States to enhance safety at dangerous highway-rail grade crossings. This legislation addresses one aspect of the grade crossing safety problem by refining a key provision of the existing ISTEA law. Using this proposal as a foundation, I am hopeful the Congress will craft provisions for the highway reauthorization bill that recognize the overall efforts of States to implement comprehensive rail safety programs. An effective grade crossing safety program integrates construction improvement projects with driver education and awareness programs, crossing closures, vigorous enforcement of crossing traffic laws and assessments of crossing inventories to identify the most hazardous crossings in a State. I will work with my colleagues this year to help assure Congress passes highway reauthorization legislation that makes the best use of available Federal resources while encouraging States to continue pursuing comprehensive efforts to address their public grade crossing safety requirements. My intent with this legislation is not to penalize certain States or to create winners or losers in the process of distributing Federal highway funds, but to find the best solution that will eliminate these preventable tragedies. At this time, it is unclear what direction the next highway authorization bill will take, what the Federal role will be in maintaining the national transportation infrastructure, and what current ISTEA programs will be renewed. Last year, I endorsed Senator Warner's reauthorization proposal to provide a more streamlined and flexible highway program that returns resources and authority back to the States. My intent with this legislation during this reauthorization process is not to protect a particular highway program or specific Federal set-aside requirement of the expiring ISTEA law, but rather to continue emphasizing an issue of great importance to my State of Indiana and to other States experiencing rail safety problems. I will advocate grade crossing safety as a priority within the context of other key funding and flexibility issues that are vital to the continued safety and mobility of Hoosiers traveling on Indiana roadways. I am hopeful this legislation will reinforce the importance of highway-rail grade crossing safety as the Congress moves forward with the national discussion of U.S. transportation policy for the 21st century. Continued emphasis on finding new and better ways to target existing resources to enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings will contribute to the overall effort in Congress and in the States to prevent accidents, save lives, and sustain a balanced and effective transportation network for the Nation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to provide a more effective method of targeting available Federal funds to enhance safety at our Nation's most hazardous highway- rail grade crossings. I first introduced this measure during the 104th Congress following 2 years of work to address a pressing public safety problem occurring in Indiana and other rail-intensive States. It is my hope this important legislation will be given thoughtful and thorough consideration this year as Congress moves to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. It is unclear what the final program structure will look like, or what the specific Federal role will be in the transportation decisionmaking process. I will work this year to assure that the goals of this rail safety legislation are incorporated as part of an ISTEA reauthorization bill that creates a more streamlined, flexible Federal highway program to help States maintain safe, effective, and efficient transportation networks. In America today, several hundred people are killed and thousands more injured every year as a result of vehicle-train collisions at highway-rail grade crossings. A significant number of these accidents occur in rail-intensive States such as Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, California, and Texas. One quarter of the Nation's 168,000 public highway-rail grade crossings are located in these 5 States. They accounted for 38 percent of deaths and 32 percent of injuries caused by vehicle-train collisions nationwide during 1991-1993. My home State of Indiana ranks sixth in the Nation for number of total public grade crossings with about 6,700, and is annually among the top five States for numbers of accidents and fatalities caused by vehicle-train crashes. In 1994, I travelled across northern Indiana aboard a QSX-500 locomotive and witnessed what engineers see every day--motorists darting across the railroad tracks before an oncoming train. From this experience, and from my work to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings, I learned that engineering solutions, along with education and awareness about grade crossing safety, are key strategies that can effectively prevent grade crossing accidents. Responding to this disturbing national trend, I began working in 1993 with Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and with the Indiana Department of Transportation to address this serious safety problem. We worked to find solutions that would help Indiana and other States make better use of available funds to target the Nation's most hazardous rail crossings. The Federal Government has played an important role in helping States eliminate accidents and fatalities at public highway-rail intersections since passage of the Highway Safety Act by Congress in 1973. This act created the Rail-Highway Crossing Program, also known as the Section 130 Program. Since the program's inception, more than 28,000 improvement projects have been undertaken--from installation of warning gates, lights and bells, to pavement improvements and grade separation construction projects. During the 103d Congress, I introduced grade crossing safety legislation to restore States' discretion over millions of Federal highway dollars lost as a result of noncompliance with the Federal motorcycle helmet law. Indiana and other States affected by this law were prohibited from using a portion of their highway construction dollars to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings. I was pleased the Congress repealed the helmet law penalty in 1995 as part of the National Highway System designation legislation. States now have greater flexibility to use their highway dollars for improvements at rail crossings, and for other transportation priorities. In March 1994, Senator Coats and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a survey of rail safety programs in Indiana and other rail intensive States experiencing a high number of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings. Released in August 1995, the report ``Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad Crossing Safety'' evaluated the best uses of limited Federal funds for rail crossing safety, reviewed policy changes that help State and local governments address rail safety issues, and recommended strategies to encourage interagency and intergovernmental cooperation. The report found that in addition to States' efforts to reduce accidents and fatalities through emphasis on education programs, engineering solutions, and enforcement of traffic laws, changes to the Federal funding formulas would target highway funds to areas of greatest risk. Under, ISTEA, the Section 130 Program was continued--with a portion of the 10 percent of a State's STP safety funds dedicated to highway- rail crossing improvement and hazard elimination projects. The GAO reported that key indicators or ``risk factors'' used to assess rail-grade crossing safety are not taken into account when STP funds are distributed among States. The GAO outlined the Federal Highway Administration's [FHWA] work to review options for STP formula changes that adjust the current flat percentage allocation to include these risk factors. Applying these factors to the funding formula creates a more targeted and focused process that maximizes the effectiveness of Federal funds. The risk factors criteria considered by FHWA include a State's share of the national total for number of public crossings, number of public crossings with passive warning devices, total number of accidents, and total number of fatalities occurring as a result of vehicle-train collisions at highway-rail grade crossings. For example, while Indiana received 3.4 percent of section 130 funds in fiscal year 1995, the Hoosier State experienced 6.1 percent of the Nation's accidents and 5.9 percent of the fatalities as a result of vehicle-train collisions from 1991 to 1993. In addition, Indiana has about 4 percent of the Nation's public rail crossings. Preliminary estimates of STP apportionments under a risk-based apportionment formula indicate Indiana's share of section 130 funds could increase by 49 percent, from the fiscal year 1997 level of $4.9 to $7.3 million. Overall, about 21 States would receive a substantial increase in section 130 funds for grade crossing improvements, including: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. While the Indiana Department of Transportation [INDOT] spends over $10 million a year to improve highway-rail grade crossings, a 49- percent increase in section 130 funds would allow INDOT and other State departments of transportation additional resources to improve hazardous highway-rail grade crossings. The Formula Enhancement Act addresses the allocation problem by adjusting the funding formula for the STP to include an apportionment of funds to States for the section 130 Program based on a 3-year average of these risk factors. I want to express my appreciation to the FHWA and to the Federal Railroad Administration for their valuable assistance in preparing this legislation. This legislation will help improve the way the Federal Government targets existing resources to enhance safety on our Nation's highways and along our rail corridors. This legislation does not call for new Federal spending, but rather for a more equitable and effective distribution of existing highway funds to States to enhance safety at dangerous highway-rail grade crossings. This legislation addresses one aspect of the grade crossing safety problem by refining a key provision of the existing ISTEA law. Using this proposal as a foundation, I am hopeful the Congress will craft provisions for the highway reauthorization bill that recognize the overall efforts of States to implement comprehensive rail safety programs. An effective grade crossing safety program integrates construction improvement projects with driver education and awareness programs, crossing closures, vigorous enforcement of crossing traffic laws and assessments of crossing inventories to identify the most hazardous crossings in a State. I will work with my colleagues this year to help assure Congress passes highway reauthorization legislation that makes the best use of available Federal resources while encouraging States to continue pursuing comprehensive efforts to address their public grade crossing safety requirements. My intent with this legislation is not to penalize certain States or to create winners or losers in the process of distributing Federal highway funds, but to find the best solution that will eliminate these preventable tragedies. At this time, it is unclear what direction the next highway authorization bill will take, what the Federal role will be in maintaining the national transportation infrastructure, and what current ISTEA programs will be renewed. Last year, I endorsed Senator Warner's reauthorization proposal to provide a more streamlined and flexible highway program that returns resources and authority back to the States. My intent with this legislation during this reauthorization process is not to protect a particular highway program or specific Federal set-aside requirement of the expiring ISTEA law, but rather to continue emphasizing an issue of great importance to my State of Indiana and to other States experiencing rail safety problems. I will advocate grade crossing safety as a priority within the context of other key funding and flexibility issues that are vital to the continued safety and mobility of Hoosiers traveling on Indiana roadways. I am hopeful this legislation will reinforce the importance of highway-rail grade crossing safety as the Congress moves forward with the national discussion of U.S. transportation policy for the 21st century. Continued emphasis on finding new and better ways to target existing resources to enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings will contribute to the overall effort in Congress and in the States to prevent accidents, save lives, and sustain a balanced and effective transportation network for the Nation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Harkin and Leahy, legislation to amend the Commodity Exchange Act. This bill is very similar to S. 2077, which Senator Leahy and I introduced last September after several months of hearings and informal consultations with industry, academics, and regulators. The legislation streamlines U.S. futures trading law, conforming it to changing competitive realities. In many ways, regulation has benefited the U.S. futures industry. Prudent regulation enhances customer protection, prevents and punishes fraud and other abuses, and makes futures markets better able to provide risk management, price discovery, and investment opportunity. Regulation, however, also has its costs. U.S. futures markets face competition that is, in some cases, less regulated or differently regulated. In the years ahead, our challenge is to balance the need for adequate regulation with the need to offer cost-competitive products. This bill tries to strike such a balance. It requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to consider the costs for industry of the regulations it imposes. The bill streamlines the process of introducing new futures contracts, reducing the time that is required to begin trading these new products. It makes similar reforms to the process by which exchanges' rules are reviewed by the CFTC. Where additional authority for the CFTC is needed, the bill provides it. The CFTC will have the authority to require U.S. delivery points for overseas futures markets to provide information that is also regularly demanded of American market participants. This is eminently reasonable, and may assist the CFTC and other regulators in the future if situations similar to the 1996 London copper market scandal recur. The bill will also provide greater legal certainty for swaps, over- the-counter products that are of increasing importance to many businesses. It is important that these contracts' enforceability be made more certain, so that legal risk does not compound the other risks inherent in any financial transaction. In one important addition to last year's legislation, the new bill will also provide this legal certainty for swaps that are based on equities, as well as for hybrid instruments. In a more limited way, the bill will establish the terms of exemptions for on-exchange products traded solely among professional investors. Another addition to last year's legislation is a major rewrite of the so-called Treasury amendment, a provision of the Commodity Exchange Act that excludes some financial products from its regulatory coverage. This controversial section is at best unclear, and needs a fresh look from Congress. I hope the proposals we have made in this bill--which are explained in a discussion document I will mention in a moment--will both stimulate dialog and find wide acceptance. It is unfortunate that the CFTC and the Treasury Department, which discussed this subject at Senator Leahy's and my request, were unable to agree on a common approach. However, the committee will work with both agencies as we move forward. Despite some differences in drafting, I believe the Treasury Department's ideas are basically consistent with what Senators Harkin, Leahy, and I have proposed. The Treasury did not propose, as we do, to allow futures exchanges to create professionals- only markets in Treasury amendment products. However, Senator Harkin and I are informed that while the Treasury is still studying this proposal, in principle the Department does not object to treating exchange affiliates in a manner similar to other sophisticated market participants. The bill contains a number of other provisions. Senator Harkin and I have prepared a section-by-section discussion document, which may be helpful to our colleagues. On February 11 and 13, the committee will hold hearings on this legislation. It is a priority for the committee during the coming weeks and months. I would like to thank Senator Harkin for his extraordinary cooperation in putting this bill together. As the new ranking member of the committee, he has been gracious and collegial. Likewise, Senator Leahy's efforts both last year and this year deserve special praise. I salute them both for their leadership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, development of overseas markets and customers is vital to the future of U.S. agriculture. Demand for food and feed is growing rapidly. U.S. agriculture is efficient and competitive, however, tariff and nontariff barriers remain high in many countries. As incomes rise in developing countries, their demands for our products will continue to expand. In 1996, agricultural exports reached a record $59.8 billion. Continued growth is vital. World commodity markets are often distorted by import barriers, export subsidies and State trading enterprises. These distortions put American farmers and agribusiness operators at a disadvantage. We must reduce trade barriers and allow our industry to supply the world's markets. Today I will introduce the Trade Agreement Implementation Reform Act. This bill will grant the President the fast-track authority he needs to negotiate future trade agreements. It is in the national interest for the President to have this authority, but is has lapsed due in part to the way past implementing legislation was handled. Earlier fast-track authority allowed side-deals, special-interest accommodations and provisions of questionable merit. As a result, public confidence in our trade policies eroded. Reforming the fast- track process and prohibiting these special-interest provisions is one step in gaining support for future trade agreements. My bill contains two major changes from previous practice. First, legislation submitted under the fast-track authority will contain only provisions absolutely necessary to implement an agreement. Prior law allowed provisions necessary and appropriate and encouraged deals with special interests in exchange for support. Second, although fast-track legislation is not amendable, we should make one exception. Senators should be able to amend or delete provisions that merely offset revenue losses from tariff changes. Such provisions in the Uruguay round legislation included the controversial Pioneer Preference and pension reform titles. Congress should have the ability to debate and amend items like these, but be subject to overall time limits. The United States must continue to move forward in its effort to find new markets for our goods and services. We should take advantage of a favorable trade climate in South America by pursuing an agreement with Chile. Chile has advanced bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and has become an associate member of the Southern Cone Mercosur trading bloc. Before the United States can move forward, the administration must have fast-track authority. The President must now make a case to Congress and the American people that this is a priority of his administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, development of overseas markets and customers is vital to the future of U.S. agriculture. Demand for food and feed is growing rapidly. U.S. agriculture is efficient and competitive, however, tariff and nontariff barriers remain high in many countries. As incomes rise in developing countries, their demands for our products will continue to expand. In 1996, agricultural exports reached a record $59.8 billion. Continued growth is vital. World commodity markets are often distorted by import barriers, export subsidies and State trading enterprises. These distortions put American farmers and agribusiness operators at a disadvantage. We must reduce trade barriers and allow our industry to supply the world's markets. Today I will introduce the Trade Agreement Implementation Reform Act. This bill will grant the President the fast-track authority he needs to negotiate future trade agreements. It is in the national interest for the President to have this authority, but is has lapsed due in part to the way past implementing legislation was handled. Earlier fast-track authority allowed side-deals, special-interest accommodations and provisions of questionable merit. As a result, public confidence in our trade policies eroded. Reforming the fast- track process and prohibiting these special-interest provisions is one step in gaining support for future trade agreements. My bill contains two major changes from previous practice. First, legislation submitted under the fast-track authority will contain only provisions absolutely necessary to implement an agreement. Prior law allowed provisions necessary and appropriate and encouraged deals with special interests in exchange for support. Second, although fast-track legislation is not amendable, we should make one exception. Senators should be able to amend or delete provisions that merely offset revenue losses from tariff changes. Such provisions in the Uruguay round legislation included the controversial Pioneer Preference and pension reform titles. Congress should have the ability to debate and amend items like these, but be subject to overall time limits. The United States must continue to move forward in its effort to find new markets for our goods and services. We should take advantage of a favorable trade climate in South America by pursuing an agreement with Chile. Chile has advanced bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and has become an associate member of the Southern Cone Mercosur trading bloc. Before the United States can move forward, the administration must have fast-track authority. The President must now make a case to Congress and the American people that this is a priority of his administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Thursday, February 13, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to discuss reform to the Commodity Exchange Act.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Tuesday, February 11, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of the hearing will be to discuss reform to the Commodity Exchange Act. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a Senate Resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the income tax system be abolished and replaced with a broad-based consumption tax on goods and services. Despite a booming stock market and several years of economic growth, I have found that many citizens--particularly young Americans--are anxious about their future and have diminishing hope for better economic opportunities. Long-term economic trends justify these apprehensions. From 1950 through 1973, hourly compensation--including both wages and benefits-- increased an average of 3.0 percent per year. Since 1973, the average wage increase has been less than one half of one percent. During the past two decades, economic growth has been cut in half, averaging only 2.5 percent annually. If this isn't discouraging enough, limiting growth to 2.5 percent appears to be the economic course of the Federal Reserve Board. Much of this economic under-achievement can be attributed to our national savings rate, which has fallen to alarmingly low levels. After averaging 13.3 percent in the 1960's, our Nation's savings rate has sunk to 5.5 percent in the 1990's. Because of this low rate of savings, capital to fuel our economy has become increasingly scarce. As a result, productivity gains have averaged just 1.1 percent from 1974 to 1994. The Concord Coalition estimates that had our productivity held its pre-1974 annual growth rate of 2.9 percent, the median family income would now be $50,000 annually, instead of the current level of $35,000. Although several other factors have contributed to this slowing of savings and prosperity, including continuing Federal budget deficits and the ensuing debt, our income tax system remains a significant drag on our long-term economic expansion. I propose that Congress should work toward the elimination of the income tax, the accompanying capital gains tax, and the estate and gift tax and replace them with a broad- based, single-rate national sales tax on goods and services. The Federal income tax system is inherently flawed. By taxing savings and investment at least twice, it has become the biggest impediment to economic growth in the country. Each year it costs Americans more than 5 billion hours of time to comply with it. That is equal to the total worker output of my State of Indiana. It is unfair and riddled with loopholes. It has been changed 31 times in the past 41 years. And finally, it doesn't work. By its own admission, the Internal Revenue Service fails to collect from nearly 10 million taxpayers, with an estimated $127 billion in uncollected taxes annually. Anything this broken should be ended decisively. One can evaluate a tax system using several criteria. It must be: (1) simple, (2) the least intrusive, (3) fair, (4) transparent, (5) border adjustable, and (6) friendly to savings and investment. I have studied recent tax reform proposals with these six factors in mind. Many are better than the current income tax. But if we are going to overhaul our tax system, we should choose the one that meets these criteria. I have concluded that a national sales tax is the best alternative. The first factor in choosing an effective tax system is its simplicity. Under a national sales tax, the burden of complying with the income tax code would be lifted. There would be no records to keep or audits to fear. The money a person made would be his or her own. You may decide if you want to save it, invest it, or give it to your children. It is only when you buy something that you pay a tax. The national sales tax is the least intrusive of the tax proposals. The IRS would be substantially dismantled. The IRS would no longer look over the shoulders of every taxpayer. Americans would not waste time and effort worrying about record keeping, deductions, or exemptions that are part of the current tax code. The national sales tax is the fairest. Everyone pays the tax including criminals, illegal aliens, and others who currently avoid taxation. Wealthy Americans with lavish spending habits would pay substantial amounts of taxes under the national sales tax. Individuals who save and invest their money will pay less. Gone are the loopholes and deductions that provide advantages to those with the resources to shelter their income. The national sales tax would also tax the underground economy. When criminals consume the proceeds of their activities, they will pay a tax. Foreign tourists and illegal aliens will pay the tax. Tax systems that rely on income reporting will never collect any of this potential revenue. Of course, the fairness test must likewise consider those with limited means to pay taxes. Like the income tax system, a national sales tax can and should be constructed to lessen the tax burden on those individuals with the least ability to pay. One strategy for addressing this problem would exempt a threshold level of goods and services consumed by each American from the Federal sales tax. Another strategy is to exempt items such as housing, food or medicine. I am committed to designing a tax system that does not fall disproportionately on the less fortunate. The national sales tax is the most transparent. A Federal tax that is evident to everyone would bolster efforts in Congress to achieve prudence in Federal spending. There should be no hidden corporate taxes that are passed on to consumers or withholding mechanisms that mask the amount we pay in taxes. Every year the public and Congress should openly debate the tax rate necessary for the Federal Government to meet its obligations. If average Americans are paying that rate every day, they will make certain that Congress spends public funds wisely. American exports would also benefit from the enactment of a national sales tax. We must adopt a tax system that encourages exports. Most of our trading partners have tax systems that are border adjustable. They are able to strip out their tax when exporting their goods. In comparison, the income tax is not border adjustable. American goods that are sent overseas are taxed twice--once by the income tax and once when they reach their destination. In comparison, the national sales tax would not be levied on exports. It would place our exports on a level playing field with those of our trading partners. But the last and most imperative reason for replacing the income tax with a national sales tax is that it would energize our economy by encouraging savings. For the first time in the modern era, the next generation of Americans may be economically worse off than the previous one. Despite robust economic growth over the past several years, the average income of families has declined. They feel trapped in a box with diminishing hope of escaping. The bottom line is that as a nation, we do not save enough. Savings are vital because they are the source of all investment and productivity gains--savings supply the capital for buying a new machine, developing a new product or service, or employing an extra worker. The Japanese save at a rate nine times greater than Americans and the Germans save five times as much as we do. Today, many believe that Americans inherently consume beyond their means and cannot save enough for the future. Few realize that before World War II, before the income tax system developed into its present form, Americans saved a larger portion of their earnings than the Japanese. A national sales tax would reverse this trend by directly taxing consumption and leaving savings and investment untaxed. Economists agree that a broad-based consumption tax would increase our savings rate substantially. Economist Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University estimates that our savings rate would more than triple in the first year. Economist Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University has concluded that the United States would have experienced one trillion dollars in additional economic growth if it had adopted a consumption tax like the national sales tax in 1986 instead of the current system. As I have outlined here today, I believe the national sales tax is the best tax system to replace the income tax. If we enact a tax system that encourages investment and savings, billions of dollars of investment will flow into our country. This makes sense--America has the most stable political system, the best infrastructure, a highly educated workforce and the largest consumer market in the world. Our economic growth and prosperity would be unsurpassed. I am committed to bringing this message of hope to all Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this important endeavor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as we commence the 105th Congress and take up, as we surely will, issues with regard to national missile defense and theater missile defense, a key question is whether continued adherence to the ABM Treaty, in its original or a modified form, is compatible with the kind of missile defense we need. Is this an ``either/or'' choice? I hold the view that the ABM Treaty does have, or can be made to have, sufficient flexibility or elasticity to accommodate certain kinds of national missile or theater missile defense systems. By the same token, I reject the notion that we can only achieve the types of theater missile defense or national missile defense we need by outright abrogation of the ABM Treaty. I am struck more by the commonality than the differences between the prevailing views of some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate and views in the Administration on this subject. Much of the difference has to do with timing, stemming in part from different assessments of the intelligence information on the ballistic missile threat facing the country. Ultimately, responsible policy makers must come to grips with the management of the risk entailed by the threat and how much money we are willing to spend, in a tight budget situation, for various levels of missile defense to counter that threat. At this point in our debates, there seems to be general agreement that we are not trying to protect the U.S. against a massive nuclear strike from a reconstituted Soviet Union or even a general exchange with Russia. Nor, for that matter, are we talking about protection against a deliberate, massive Chinese nuclear attack on the United States. A consensus between the prevailing positions on the Hill and that of the administration comes closer if there is an acceptance that this range of Russian or Chinese threats are beyond our technological and financial means in the near term and that our objective is one of defending America against a Third World, long-range ballistic missile capability from a regime not subject to any rational laws of deterrence. It is the prospect that rogue states will at some point obtain strategic ballistic missiles - ICBMs - that can reach American shores which propels us to consider the deployment of a national missile defense. A second prospect involves an unauthorized or accidental launch of an ICBM from Russia or China. The kind of national missile defense system promoted both on the Hill and in the administration would not be capable of defending against thousands of warheads being launched against the United States. Rather, both sides are talking about a system capable of defending against the much smaller and relatively unsophisticated ICBM threat that a rogue nation or terrorist group could mount anytime in the foreseeable future as well as one capable of shooting down an unauthorized or accidentally launched missile. The critical difference between many of the plans offered on the Hill and those proposed by the administration has to do with timing. Some Congressional proposals would require selection of a missile defense system to be made within a year, with deployment to begin within three years. The administration has argued for the need to develop a system, assess the threat in three years, and make a deployment decision accordingly. It is the difference between the various plans over timing on system selection and deployment that holds practical implications for existing and potential arms control agreements--START II, the ABM Treaty, START III?--as well as the potential effectiveness of the system deployed. The more immediate the commitment to deploy a national defense system, the greater the risk of a Russian rejection of the START II Treaty and of an outright American rejection of the original ABM Treaty. Second, differences over timing have been linked to the issue of the effectiveness of the system deployed by the United States. The administration has argued that selection of a system within the next year or so will limit the options to build a system that is better matched to the threat, and that the real choice between various Congressional plans and that of the administration is between building an advanced system to defeat an actual threat and a less capable system to defeat a hypothetical threat. Mr. President, is there a middle ground--one that satisfies neither the administration nor various Congressional proponents fully but that does move us in the direction of providing the American people with a limited national defense system against the most urgent ballistic missile threats? I believe there is, and this legislation is an attempt to chart it. Mr. President, I sense a greater willingness in both branches to try to come together in the interest of providing the American people with some form of limited, national defense system against the most urgent form of ballistic missile threat --to seek to bridge gaps rather than score debating points. Moreover, with the passage of time, the differences over preferred dates of system selection and deployment have narrowed. With that in mind, and with a felt need to change the terms of reference of previous ballistic missile defense debates by focusing on areas of commonality between the administration's position and the various congressional plans, I offer this legislation as one of the starting points for a more constructive exchange on the subject of national missile defense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, On April 29, 1997 the multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] that bans the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, use, and direct or indirect transfer of chemical weapons to anyone will enter into force whether or not the Senate acts and the President ratifies the Convention. Thus over the next three months it will be necessary for the Senate to consider the Convention and to fashion a corresponding resolution of ratification if the United States is to benefit from the provisions of the agreement and the U.S. chemical industry is not to suffer from the disadvantages imposed on chemical firms of non-Parties. The Senate was on the verge of taking up the CWC on the floor through consideration of a resolution of ratification that I co-authored and which was reported out of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by a vote of 13-5 on April 30, 1996. Given the arrival of new members to the Senate and the need for all members to inform themselves in the near term on the benefits and costs to the United States of full participation in the Convention, I am submitting in the form of a Sense of the Senate resolution the resolution of ratification that was to have served as the vehicle for debate in the Senate during the 104th Congress. It is my hope that this will be helpful to all Senators and can serve as an important benchmark for a more constructive exchange during the 105th Congress on the subject of ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.