[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11034-S11042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  By Mr. FORD (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. McConnell, 
Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hollings and Mr. Thurmond):
  S. 1310. A bill to provide market transition assistance for tobacco 
producers, tobacco industry workers, and their communities; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS ACT

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on June 20, the attorneys general of several 
States emerged from a Washington hotel conference room to announce a 
proposed national tobacco settlement. The announcement sent Washington 
spin doctors to work, pronouncing the defeat of public enemy number 
one--the tobacco industry. Press release after press release painted a 
picture of fat cat tobacco executives, rich at the expense of public 
health, finally being called to account.
  But this picture of tobacco is not what I see when I go home to 
Kentucky. There I see hard-working farmers trying to make an honest 
living off a crop that has helped hundreds of communities in my State 
thrive for centuries.
  Maybe you've forgotten about the farmer. That wouldn't surprise me. 
They weren't in the room during the tobacco negotiations. They were not 
included in the final settlement, and to date, the only plan that 
mentions them would put them out of business.
  Mr. President, it is as if the thousands of men and women who have 
been the bedrock of hundreds of communities simply no longer have any 
value.
  Sixty thousand farm families produce tobacco in 119 of 120 counties 
in my State. While tobacco uses only 1 to 2 percent of their acreage, 
it produces 20 to 25 percent of their farm income. Along with these 
farm families are tens of thousands of workers who warehouse, process 
and manufacture tobacco. They all live in communities where every 
tobacco dollar has a multiplier effect on the local economy, rolling 
over three to four times.
  And they're the reason I am here today.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my colleagues in 
introducing legislation which addresses the needs of tobacco farmers, 
tobacco workers, and their communities and should provide the framework 
for taking care of them in any comprehensive legislation.
  First and foremost, ``taking care of them'' means protecting the 
tobacco program.
  Opponents of the program claim they're not attacking farmers, but 
with the program goes stability, with the program goes the small family 
farmer, and with the program goes hundreds of small rural communities.
  Mr. President, the program is the key to preventing fence row to 
fence row production.
  It is the key to keeping tobacco prices high.
  And it is the key to keeping tobacco production in the hands of small 
family farms and keeping rural communities alive.
  Without the program, look for cheap cigarettes, look for the size of 
farms--at the very least--to triple in size. Look for family farms to 
go out of business, and look for the rural communities they sustain, to 
shut down.
  What are the benefits of killing the program? For hard-working family 
farmers there simply are none.
  That is why killing the program is a nonstarter. And even though 
criticisms are based either on misconceptions or misrepresentations of 
the program, we're willing to address them by covering all these costs 
with our legislation. But make no mistake, we're not willing to 
eliminate the program.
  The legislation we're introducing today follows the principles every 
one of my colleagues went on record supporting in a September 9 Sense 
of the Senate amendment. We all agreed that tobacco growers should be 
fairly compensated as part of any Federal legislation to implement the 
tobacco settlement. We all agreed tobacco growing communities should be 
provided sufficient resources to adjust to the economic impact of any 
settlement legislation. We all agreed compensation to farmers and their 
communities should come from funds provided within the parameters of 
the national settlement, as paid by tobacco manufacturers. And we all 
agreed the tobacco program should be maintained and operated at no net 
cost to the taxpayer.
  These four simple principles will mean the difference between a 
productive future for tobacco farmers and a ``for sale'' sign up at the 
end of the driveway--the difference between communities where a 
farmer's children stay to raise their children and a ghost town.
  At the core of the legislation is the establishment of a Tobacco 
Community Revitalization Trust Fund. The trust fund will provide 
compensation for farmers, investment funds for communities, and 
education and retraining funds, all within the parameters of the 
tobacco program and the national tobacco settlement dollar figure.
  First, the fund will provide tobacco quota holders with ``Payments 
for Lost Tobacco Quota'' based on the drop in the amount of tobacco 
they can grow. The national tobacco settlement could cause consumption 
to drop substantially, which would translate into deep cuts in each 
farm's tobacco quota and each farmer's income. Under our bill, quota 
holders will receive $4 per pound per year for every pound by which the

[[Page S11035]]

quota drops below their base quota. A maximum lifetime limit on 
payments will be set for quota holders at $8 times the number of pounds 
in their base quota. Those who lease quota or grow tobacco as a tenant 
farmer will receive $2 per pound, with a life time cap of $4 per pound.
  Second, the trust fund will make payments to cover all administrative 
costs associated with the production of tobacco. This will include 
salaries at USDA to administer the tobacco program, and any shortfall 
in the provision of crop insurance for tobacco farmers. This should 
finally put a stop to false claims that tobacco growers receive 
subsidies from the Federal Government.
  Third, the trust fund will provide Farmer Opportunity grants for 
higher education. Tobacco farmers and their dependents will be eligible 
for higher education grants of up to $1,700 per year--which is the 
current average size of a Pell grant--to attend a university, community 
college, vocational school, or other recognized institution. Academic 
eligibility standards will be modeled after Pell grants, including 
requirements that students maintain satisfactory progress toward the 
completion of their degree, and maintain at least a C average. Funding 
will be provided to cover up to 25,000 individuals from tobacco farm 
families.
  Mr. President, the tobacco program has long meant the difference 
between whether a family can afford to send their children to college 
or whether their education stops after grade 12. We need to do 
everything we can to preserve a farm family's ability to provide their 
children with access to higher education opportunities.
  Fourth, the fund will provide benefits to displaced workers from 
tobacco warehousing, processing, and manufacturing operations. This 
program is modeled after the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
for Displaced Workers. Under these provisions, workers who lose their 
jobs can receive tobacco readjustment allowances, employment services, 
job training, job search allowances, and relocation allowances, all of 
which are modeled after the NAFTA benefits and services.
  And fifth, the fund will provide economic development assistance to 
tobacco growing communities hit hard by the national tobacco 
settlement.
  The economic development fund will begin at $400 million per year 
minus the amount used for administrative costs of the tobacco program, 
distributed through block grants to tobacco growing States.
  States can use the funding to provide several types of assistance 
including rural business enterprise grants, farm ownership loans, 
activities which create farm and off-farm employment, activities which 
expand infrastructure facilities, and services which help diversify 
local economies, long-term business technical assistance, grants to 
agricultural organizations to help tobacco growers find supplemental 
agricultural activities, and activities which create or expand locally 
owned value-added agricultural processing and marketing operations.
  Providing stability, preserving traditions, keeping farms in the 
hands of families, protecting hundreds of communities, Mr. President, I 
believe this legislation will give tobacco farmers, tobacco industry 
workers and tobacco growing communities the resources to deal with the 
national tobacco settlement likely to impact them.
  With the tobacco program completely funded by tobacco growers or the 
industry itself, antitobacco advocates can no longer take aim at the 
farmer under the pretense of fiscal responsibility. And with a sense of 
stability and predictability, farmers can begin to prepare for the 
future in a responsible and thoughtful way.
  I plan on sharing this proposal with my colleagues involved in 
writing comprehensive legislative proposals to implement the national 
tobacco settlement, but I hope all my colleagues interested in this 
issue and interested in preserving a farming tradition will take a 
close look at this program so that we can move forward in helping 
tobacco farm families and their communities.
  Mr. President, we have not just singled out the farmer. We have 
included the total community, from education to job opportunity, 
whatever it might be, so we have taken in the whole community. I am 
very pleased with the hard work and support that has been given to me 
by Senator McConnell, Senator Faircloth, Senator Helms, and others to 
make this introduction so important today.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of this 
bill, the LEAF Act. I want to thank Senator Ford for the hard work and 
the leadership role he has taken over his years in the Senate on this 
bill and in support of the tobacco industry as a whole and, especially, 
the farmers involved in it.
  There has been a lot of talk on this floor about farmers. Everyone is 
against tobacco, but they are for farmers. Everyone pledges to help the 
farmers. This bill is a blueprint for that help. This plan offers 
assistance to the tobacco community across North Carolina, Kentucky, 
and the entire producing area, including Virginia, South Carolina, 
Georgia, and Tennessee. These people are the men and women in tobacco 
fields and cigarette factories and their communities.
  There are 18,000 tobacco farmers in North Carolina and thousands more 
throughout the Southeast. The farmers of my State collect more than $1 
billion in receipts each year from tobacco alone. That is a big number, 
but it is spread over many small farms. Everyone in Washington talks 
about the small farmer, the family farm, but North Carolina is the 
State of small farms. The average farm size in North Carolina is just 
159 acres, one-third of the national average, which is 469 acres. It is 
difficult at best to make a living on a small farm. Tobacco kept these 
people alive on small farming operations over the last 60 years. 
Tobacco produces roughly $1,200 an acre in net profit. There isn't 
anything else they can plant that comes close to this, even remotely 
close. Tobacco keeps the family farm together, and, Mr. President, it 
keeps the family on the farm. That is why we are here with this bill 
and the reason I am here this morning.
  The impact of this proposed tobacco settlement would throw thousands 
of small farmers off their land and immediately into bankruptcy. It is 
up to us to step up and to help them through this transition.
  I have talked about farmers so far and only farmers, but the economic 
impact of tobacco and this proposed settlement is not limited to 
farmers. There are 20,000 working people in factories across North 
Carolina manufacturing tobacco products. They pay mortgages, buy 
groceries and struggle to meet tuition bills. They are simply middle-
class American people. However, tobacco is their livelihood, and 
Congress has set its sights on destroying their livelihood. That is 
simply what has happened here.
  The entire tobacco sector employs 100,000 people in North Carolina. 
That is $7 billion in business in the State. It is 8 percent of the 
work force and represents a lot of families. I am here to attempt to 
stand up for these people.
  Next year the Congress will take up an agreement that deals a real 
blow to the livelihood of these thousands of people. Tobacco production 
is expected to drop significantly under the proposed agreement. The 
farmers and factory workers are in the cross hairs of the tobacco 
settlement, and whether the antitobacco crowd is aiming at them or not, 
they are the ones who are going to be hit. This bill tells them that 
Congress will try to lessen the effects on the innocent parties, the 
hard-working men and women in the tobacco fields and on the factory 
floor.
  Senator Ford explained these transition payments to farmers. The 
Freedom to Farm Act moved farmers to an unregulated market and included 
substantial transition payments to assist them through this change. 
However, there was nothing in that bill designed to cut production of 
corn, wheat or any other crop. This proposed tobacco settlement takes 
aim at this crop, however, so the transition payments are a necessity.
  The amount of money in this bill for the farmers and factory workers 
is modest compared to the amount of money that others seeking from the 
settlement. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $28 billion would be 
involved in Senator Ford's bill. Now, it might interest you to know 
that the hundreds of trial lawyers involved in this potential 
settlement expect to receive up to

[[Page S11036]]

$45 billion, almost two times as much as we are asking for the more 
than 150,000 people effected by this settlement.
  The farmers face a situation where the Government will target their 
crop and cut its production. We need the transition money. How many 
people, farmers or not, could stand a quick reduction of 30 percent of 
their income due to the intended actions of the Federal Government? 
That is simply what we are talking about here--reducing the tobacco 
farmer's income by 30 percent. This bill is about the future of 
communities and literally big sections of our State. The bill includes 
farm opportunity scholarships to allow the farmers and their children 
additional educational opportunities. It also provides for rural 
development to enable these communities to survive the transition. This 
bill tells farmers that Congress is not leaving them without any 
options for the future. It tells them the rhetoric against tobacco is 
not really against them. At this moment they believe that it is and 
have every reason to think so.
  This bill is a chance to back up all the rhetoric about being against 
tobacco but for farmers. If we are for farmers, we will pass this bill. 
I hope my colleagues will join me, Senator Ford, Senator McConnell, and 
Senator Helms in support of this bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Ford for his important 
work and his leadership on this issue. It is so vital to the State we 
jointly represent.
  I am pleased to be on the floor of the Senate today to talk about an 
industry that has played an integral role in our country's history and 
continues to shape the cultural and economic landscape of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky. The industry, of course, is tobacco. And for 
the next few minutes I want to discuss tobacco and the shifting 
political terrain that will affect the 136,000 farmers who produce this 
agricultural commodity.
  This summer a group of States attorneys general, representatives of 
the major tobacco companies, and public health officials negotiated an 
agreement that would limit the companies' legal liability in exchange 
for their promise to help reduce smoking and compensate States for past 
damages caused by use of their product. This agreement obviously must 
be passed by the Congress and signed by the President to have the force 
of law, and that process is now what best could be described as in its 
initial stages.
  To my deep disappointment, tobacco farmers were not included in these 
negotiations. They had no seat at the table. Not surprisingly, there is 
not a single penny in this $368 billion pool of money for tobacco 
farmers, even though they will be the ones most directly impacted by 
the agreement. On the other hand, the agreement allows for the 
compensation of well-heeled sporting enterprises such as auto racing 
and rodeos in the event they lose sponsorship dollars but not a penny 
goes to the hard-working tobacco farmers who may well be driven off 
their family farms because of an agreement to which they were not a 
party.
  Today, along with Senator Ford, the principal craftsman of this bill, 
Senator Helms and Senator Faircloth, I propose to right that wrong by 
supporting a package that will provide for these farmers' well-being. 
Today, my colleagues and I are introducing the Long-term Economic 
Assistance for Farmers Act, what we call the LEAF Act, which creates an 
umbrella ``Tobacco Community Revitalization Fund.'' The fund, to be 
paid for from moneys within the existing $368-billion settlement, will 
stabilize the incomes of tobacco farmers by providing payments for lost 
tobacco quota to tobacco quota holders, tenants and those who lease 
quota. Quota holders who produce their own tobacco will be paid $4 a 
pound in any given year for every pound their quota falls behind their 
average 1994-1966 quota level. In the case of leased tobacco and tenant 
farmers, payments will be $2 a pound.
  A portion of the fund will also be used for Tobacco Community 
Economic Development Grants which will help transition tobacco 
dependent communities to a more diversified economic base. The economic 
development grants will be used for costs incidental to the tobacco 
program, economic development grants to States, farmer opportunity 
grants for education and training, and assistance for displaced tobacco 
industry workers.
  Mr. President, most agree that tobacco farmers and their communities 
should not bear the brunt of the agreement's dislocating effects. For 
instance, Minority Leader Daschle has said that ``We need to address 
some of the concerns that were not addressed in the agreement * * * 
especially those dealing with small farmers.'' The President himself 
has said, ``Any tobacco legislation must protect tobacco farmers and 
their communities.'' Even tobacco's most committed foes such as former 
FDA Commissioner David Kessler recognize that, as he put it, ``farmers 
should not be left out'' of the agreement. The LEAF Act does provide 
for farmers. It provides compensation for reduced quota to owners and 
those who produce the tobacco. It provides opportunities for tobacco 
farmers to diversify their crops. It provides economic stability for 
small tobacco farmers and their tobacco communities. It provides 
education and training opportunities for tobacco farmers and their 
dependents. It keeps farmers like mine in Kentucky in the business of 
producing this legal agricultural commodity.
  So, Mr. President, I rise in support of the LEAF Act. I thank Senator 
Ford for his leadership and tireless efforts to protect our tobacco 
growers and their communities. I believe Senator Ford's bill provides 
the best alternative for our growers.
  Having said that, I realize we face an uphill battle. Today's 
political environment for tobacco interests is darkened mightily. In 
today's Senate, outrageously unfair amendments that deny basic crop 
insurance to tobacco farmers are only narrowly defeated. The ceaseless 
assault on tobacco has left the tobacco grower imperiled. In this 
context it may be difficult to sustain the political support necessary 
to enact all of the bill's provisions. I personally will fight for the 
Ford package, but I also will be cognizant of political reality. It is 
my fervent hope that we can incorporate the LEAF Act into any 
settlement legislation.
  If that is not achievable, I will not be discouraged from pursuing 
alternative ways to best provide tobacco farmers' needs.
  Finally, Mr. President, as Congress discusses the proposed tobacco 
settlement, I urge my colleagues to remember that our decisions will 
not affect some nameless, faceless machine. Rather, our actions here 
will bear directly on thousands of hard-working tobacco farmers, men 
and women who pay their taxes, go to church, raise their families, and 
do their best to provide for future generations. We owe it to them to 
ensure that today's changes in the tobacco culture leave them with a 
stable future as well.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Let me thank my colleagues for their remarks. One of the 
things that we have to take into consideration is that this bill is a 
bill that looks not only to the farmer but to his family, his children 
for education, and economic development in the community. I hope people 
understand, I hope my colleagues understand, that this bill 
incorporates payment for everything, even the shortfall in the crop 
insurance. So there should not be these so-called cheap shots, as my 
colleague from Kentucky explained, as it relates to the tobacco farmer, 
under this proposal. If you take a look, I would hope Senators will 
understand that. We have worked very hard putting this package together 
and hopefully it will be accepted within the parameters of any 
agreement.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I too am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of Senator Ford's bill, titled the Long-term Economic 
Assistance for Farmers Act (S. 1310). The able senior Senator from 
Kentucky is to be commended for offering this legislation.
  Mr. President, as farmers and rural communities in tobacco-growing 
States come to terms with the national tobacco settlement, this bill 
will address some of the needs sure to arise during this critical 
economic adjustment period. I believe this legislation is a good 
starting point for helping these farmers, their families, and their 
communities.
  Obviously, it is too much to hope that everybody affected by the 
settlement will be satisfied with every provision in this bill, but it 
is important

[[Page S11037]]

that we begin to take steps to ensure farmers the same stability and 
predictability that the tobacco companies sought when they negotiated 
the national tobacco settlement.
  Mr. President, let me make it clear that--and I believe Senator Ford 
and all other supporters of this legislation agree--that this is only a 
starting point. It may be--after consultation with growers, companies 
and other affected parties--that only minor changes in this legislation 
need to be made. Or, it may be--that a significant overhaul in our 
approach to this issue is needed.
  Whatever the future holds, of this tobacco growers may be assured: I 
will do everything proper in my power to protect their interests. I 
have often been criticized for standing up for the livelihoods of 
tobacco farmers--and I suppose I will be criticized many times more in 
the future. Let the critics proceed, but I shall never retreat from my 
convictions that the hard-working families deserve to be recognized for 
the good citizens and splendid families that they are.
  So, Mr. President, again I commend my friend from Kentucky, Mr. Ford, 
for his tireless effort to protect tobacco farmers, and I am honored to 
stand with him once again.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. D'Amato, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Helms, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. McCain, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Mack, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Abraham, and 
        Mr. Reed):
  S. 1311. A bill to impose certain sanctions on foreign persons who 
transfer items contributing to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or 
produce ballistic missiles; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


          the iran missile proliferation sanctions act of 1997

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Iran Missile 
Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this 
bipartisan effort by Senator Lieberman, as well as Senators McConnell, 
Reid, D'Amato, Boxer, Coverdell, Helms, Durbin, McCain, Brownback, 
Bennett, Campbell, Feingold, Mack, Shelby, Wyden, Hutchinson, 
Feinstein, Hollings, Mikulski, Nickles, Cleland, Inouye, Dorgan, and 
Bryan.
  This is very important legislation which addresses a serious threat, 
in my opinion, to American security: Iran's relentless efforts to 
acquire ballistic missile technology. There is no doubt that Iran is 
the major proliferation danger in the world today. Iran is committed to 
developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means to 
deliver them.
  The consequences of Iran's ballistic missile development would be 
disastrous. Iran actively supports terrorist groups around the world. 
Earlier this year, a German court found Iran's intelligence services 
responsible for assassinations on German soil. There is a very real 
possibility that Iran was behind the murder of 19 Americans in the 
Khobar Towers bombing on June 25, 1996.
  News reports now indicate that Iran is developing two missiles with 
ranges of 800 or more than 1,200 miles. Such missiles would be able to 
reach American forces stationed in the Persian Gulf. They would be able 
to reach Israel. They would be able to reach our NATO ally, Turkey. 
They would be able to reach all the way into Central Europe, as a 
matter of fact.
  The terrorist regime in Iran has already demonstrated its willingness 
and ability to use bombings and hit squads to support its radical 
agenda in the Middle East and in Europe. We cannot sit back and allow 
Tehran to acquire ballistic missile capability that could hit even more 
targets with the push of a button, possibly even with nuclear warheads.
  This administration's track record on dealing with Iran is not 
encouraging. We are always anxious to work with the administration in 
these important foreign policy issues. In 1995, with great fanfare, the 
administration announced it was strongly opposed to the sale of Russian 
nuclear reactors to Iran and the issue would be handled in the 
commission headed by Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister 
Chernomyrdin. In the intervening 2 years there has been no progress in 
halting that sale, or sales of this type.
  In 1995 the administration gave a green light to Iranian extremists 
who gained a foothold in Europe by arming the Bosnian Government. The 
residue of that green light still affects the situation in Bosnia 
today. So, there are problems, obviously, in this area.
  When the news reports in the Washington Times over the last month 
indicated that there were very serious concerns about Russian support 
for Iran's missile technology programs, many of us on Capitol Hill 
looked for action. Vice President Gore, we were told, would raise the 
issue with the Prime Minister when he was in Russia, but the response 
that he received apparently was to call the news report ``stupid'' and 
``not worthy of comment.''
  I think, after consultation with the administration, that this 
legislation is necessary because not enough has been done to address 
this Iranian missile development. I believe it is clear that existing 
United States law has been broken by Russian entities. Emissaries have 
gone to Moscow, information has been shared. Yet, no sanctions action 
has been taken by the administration.
  This legislation is necessary because it is time to act. Many have 
recently expressed concern about Congress imposing ``unilateral'' 
sanctions. My response is that Congress will step into a vacuum and 
take unilateral action when inadequate action is being taken in other 
areas.
  The legislation is quite simple. It requires the President to report 
in 30 days, and every 180 days thereafter, on entities that have 
transferred or attempted to transfer goods, technology, technical 
assistance or facilities that contribute to Iran's efforts to acquire, 
develop or produce ballistic missiles.
  The legislation requires three sanctions on any such entities: No 
export of American arms, no export of restricted dual-use items, and no 
American Government assistance. So it is a targeted sanction, aimed at 
the entities involved in these actions.
  Congress has established with successive administrations, special 
criteria in existing law for each of these three things. Our 
legislation simply says if you help Iran acquire ballistic missile 
capability, you will not get arms, controlled exports, or taxpayer-
financed aid.
  Similar bipartisan legislation is being introduced in the House 
today. I refer back to my opening remarks. There are already, I believe 
some 26 Senators who are cosponsoring on both sides of the aisle, from 
all regions of the country and all philosophical spectrums.
  I hope the Senate will take action on this legislation before the end 
of the session. Certainly, it will provide, hopefully, some additional 
impetus for the administration to aggressively address this issue. A 
number of changes have been made in the legislation to meet policy and 
legal concerns of the administration, and I hope the administration 
will see the merits of imposing these serious and rapid sanctions on 
entities which aid Iran's efforts to threaten American forces and 
American allies.
  We cannot stand mute. We cannot ignore this very serious matter. We 
will continue to work with the administration and support any 
aggressive efforts that they care to use. But after serious 
consideration, and after consultation particularly with Senator 
Lieberman, I thought it was important that we go ahead and introduce 
this legislation today, and explain why we are doing it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1311

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Iran Missile Proliferation 
     Sanctions Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. REPORTS ON MISSILE PROLIFERATION TO IRAN.

       (a) Reports.--Except as provided in subsection (c), at the 
     times specified in subsection (b), the President shall submit 
     to the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee

[[Page S11038]]

     on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report identifying every 
     foreign person with respect to whom there is credible 
     evidence indicating that that person, on or after August 8, 
     1995--
       (1) transferred goods or technology, or provided technical 
     assistance or facilities, that contributed to Iran's efforts 
     to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles; or
       (2) attempted to transfer goods or technology, or attempted 
     to provide technical assistance or facilities, that would 
     have contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or 
     produce ballistic missiles.
       (b) Timing of Reports.--The reports under subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, not later than 180 days after such 
     date of enactment, not later than 360 days after such date of 
     enactment, and annually thereafter.
       (c) Exception for Persons Previously Identified or 
     Sanctioned or Subject to Waiver.--Any person who--
       (1) was identified in a previous report submitted pursuant 
     to subsection (a);
       (2) has engaged in a transfer or transaction that was the 
     basis for the imposition of sanctions with respect to that 
     person pursuant to section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     or section 1604 of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act 
     of 1992; or
       (3) may have engaged in a transfer or transaction, or made 
     an attempt, that was the subject of a waiver pursuant to 
     section 4,
     is not required to be identified on account of that same 
     transfer, transaction, or attempt, in any report thereafter 
     submitted pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 3. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Requirement To Impose Sanctions.--
       (1) Requirement to impose sanctions.--The sanctions 
     described in subsection (b) shall be imposed on--
       (A) any foreign person identified under subsection (a)(1) 
     of section 2 in a report submitted pursuant to that section; 
     and
       (B) any foreign person identified under subsection (a)(2) 
     of section 2 in a report submitted pursuant to that section, 
     if that person has been identified in that report or a 
     previous report as having made at least 1 other attempt 
     described in subsection (a)(2) of that section.
       (2) Effective date of sanctions.--The sanctions shall be 
     effective--
       (A) 30 days after the date on which the report triggering 
     the sanction is submitted, if the report is submitted on or 
     before the date required by section 2(b);
       (B) 30 days after the date required by section 2(b) for 
     submitting the report, if the report triggering the sanction 
     is submitted within 30 days after that date; and
       (C) immediately after the report triggering the sanction is 
     submitted, if that report is submitted more than 30 days 
     after the date required by section 2(b).
       (b) Description of Sanctions.--The sanctions referred to in 
     subsection (a) that are to be imposed on a foreign person 
     described in that subsection are the following:
       (1) Arms export sanction.--For a period of not less than 2 
     years, the United States Government shall not sell to that 
     person any item on the United States Munitions List as of 
     August 8, 1995, and shall terminate sales to that person of 
     any defense articles, defense services, or design and 
     construction services under the Arms Export Control Act.
       (2) Dual use sanction.--For a period of not less than 2 
     years, the authorities of section 6 of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 shall be used to prohibit the 
     export of any goods or technology on the control list 
     established pursuant to section 5(c)(1) of that Act to that 
     person.
       (3) United states assistance.--For a period of not less 
     than 2 years, the United States Government shall not provide 
     any assistance in the form of grants, loans, credits, 
     guarantees, or otherwise, to that person.

     SEC. 4. WAIVER.

       The President may waive the imposition of any sanction that 
     otherwise would be required to be imposed pursuant to section 
     3 on any foreign person 15 days after the President 
     determines and reports to the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate that, on the basis of 
     information provided by the person, or otherwise obtained by 
     the President, the President is persuaded that the person did 
     not, on or after August 8, 1995--
       (1) transfer goods or technology, or provide technical 
     assistance or facilities, that contributed to Iran's efforts 
     to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles; or
       (2) attempt on more than one occasion to transfer goods or 
     technology, or to provide technical assistance or facilities, 
     that would have contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, 
     develop, or produce ballistic missiles.

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ACTIONS BY 
                   GOVERNMENT OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.

       As part of each report submitted pursuant to section 2, the 
     President shall include the following information with 
     respect to each person identified in that report:
       (1) A statement regarding whether the government of primary 
     jurisdiction over that person was aware of the activities 
     that were the basis for the identification of that individual 
     in the report.
       (2) If the government of primary jurisdiction was not aware 
     of the activities that were the basis for the identification 
     of that individual in the report, an explanation of the 
     reasons why the United States Government did not inform that 
     government of those activities.
       (3) If the government of primary jurisdiction was aware of 
     the activities that were the basis for the identification of 
     that individual in the report, a description of the efforts, 
     if any, undertaken by that government to prevent those 
     activities, and an assessment of the effectiveness of those 
     efforts, including an explanation of why those efforts 
     failed.
       (4) If the government of primary jurisdiction was aware of 
     the activities that were the basis for the identification of 
     that individual in the report and failed to undertake 
     effective efforts to prevent those activities, a description 
     of any sanctions that have been imposed on that government by 
     the United States Government because of such failure.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Government of primary jurisdiction.--The term 
     ``government of primary jurisdiction'' means the government 
     under whose laws a foreign person is organized, or the 
     government of the place where a foreign person is 
     headquartered or habitually resides.
       (2) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means a 
     natural person as well as a corporation, business 
     association, partnership, society, trust, any other 
     nongovernmental entity, organization, or group, and any 
     governmental entity operating as a business enterprise, and 
     any successor or subsidiary of any such entity that is 
     organized, headquartered, or habitually resides outside the 
     United States.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and 
colleague Senator Lott, and the other cosponsors, in offering this bill 
which addresses what I believe is one of the most serious and urgent 
national security threats facing this country. Ballistic missiles in 
the hands of a nation that has been our most implacable foe in the 
recent past and that has been the single most intransigent supporter of 
terrorism against this Nation and our allies should fill any right 
thinking person anywhere with the most profound fear and concern. 
Indeed, we here in this body have often expressed our concern. We have 
given the administration the tools to address this problem, 
specifically in the Arms Export Control Act and in the Iran-Iraq 
Sanctions Act. Regrettably, our concern and these tools have not yet 
resolved this threat. In fact, it is widely and reliably reported that 
persons in Russia continue to provide both technology and assistance to 
Iran such that Iran may be now only 8 months from acquiring ballistic 
missiles that could be combined with weapons of mass destruction to 
threaten United States forces and our allies and friends in the Middle 
East. And soon after that, our forces and allies throughout Europe.
  This would be a profound change in the balance of power in the 
region, and strike a serious, perhaps fatal blow to our ability to 
contain Iran until it becomes a responsible member of the community of 
nations. It would allow Iran to threaten friendly Arab states, making 
it harder for them to cooperate with the United States. It would raise 
the risks to U.S. military forces in the region. And it would threaten 
the free flow of oil in this critical region, which could create crises 
in places far from the Persian Gulf.
  We must act to try to prevent this from happening. We must tell 
Russia in no uncertain terms that we are serious, and that the time for 
slow progress in shutting off Russian assistance is past.
  Many of us are aware that the degree of government control over 
dangerous technology in the former Soviet Union has eroded 
considerably. While trying to remedy this potentially frightful 
situation, the Russian Government must contend with other pressing 
internal issues. The results are that persons or groups within Russia 
have had the latitude to transfer technology to rouge states such as 
Iran.
  We have the opportunity as well as the obligation to stand up, be 
counted, and take reasonable steps to deter this type of potentially 
cataclysmic activity. While we cannot expect to prevent all such 
technology transfers to rogue states, we do have the ability to check 
the flow of it through sanctions aimed at persons engaged in such 
activity. We also are able and must take appropriate action against 
those governments that condone such activity, whether they are 
organizing and abetting such transfer or merely looking the other way 
when their citizens engage in these activities.
  For many years, the United States and the few other members of the 
missile club of nations could be reasonably

[[Page S11039]]

assured that these missiles armed with nuclear weapons would not be 
used. That was because the leaders of these nations were generally 
reasoned individuals who shared many of the same goals. As this 
technology has spread to other countries--and continues to expand at an 
alarming rate--some of the leaders share very different views on 
methods to solve confrontation. We have to actively guard against these 
weapons becoming available to what most of the world considers to be 
unstable states governed by leaders whose thinking is outside the 
mainstream.
  We have been engaged in dialogue across a wide spectrum with our 
friends and allies in trying to prevent this from happening. As I 
mentioned earlier, the prospect of a nuclear capable, militarily 
powerful Iran armed with ballistic missiles, is clearly not in our 
national interests. Our efforts at putting controls on the flow of 
technology to rogue states have been laudable, but the sieve has been 
leaking.
  The sanctions we are proposing will further stop the diffusion of 
technology and lead toward a more stable Middle East. I fully support 
this effort because it will help prevent further technology transfer 
into an area that has seen several major wars in the last thirty years 
and that remains a region of vital national interest not only to us but 
to most of the industrial world.
  In closing, I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to 
Senator Lott for his leadership in this matter. This is an important 
step toward a safer world.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the subject of the transfer of sensitive 
missile, weapons of mass destruction, and advanced conventional weapons 
technology to Iran is far more complicated than most of us would like 
to admit. As neighbors in a volatile region, Russia and Iran have a 
long history of mutual antipathy alternating with periods of intense 
cooperation. The official atheism of the former Soviet Union was 
anathema to the Islamic tenets of revolutionary Iran. The former 
enjoyed the benefits of a sizable buffer between Russia proper and the 
Persian kingdom-turned-fundamentalist regime.
  With the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. and the emergence of 
independent Islamic governments along its southern frontier, Russia no 
longer enjoys the security it once maintained. Certainly, the absence 
of the kind of domestic and foreign security apparatus characteristic 
of its totalitarian past has exacerbated the problem of stemming 
Islamic influence, and Russia has sought to maintain an active military 
role in the region to prevent the spread of such influence, as well as 
of the kind of fighting that ravaged Tajikistan for years. The state of 
its economy, combined with its desire to maintain the best possible 
relations with Iran, have led Russia to pursue policies thoroughly 
inimical to vital United States interests in the Middle East.
  Herein lies the problem. It is in the interests of the United States 
for Russia to develop economically, obviously through free market 
mechanisms. It is in Russia's interest to have access to Iranian oil, 
to the revenue generated by sales to Teheran of whatever the latter 
will buy, and to be able to maintain cordial relations with a regime 
that possesses, albeit less so since its presidential election, the 
wherewithal to destabilize the region. Consequently, any decision to 
impose sanctions on Russia for its sale of missile and other advanced 
weapons technologies to Iran understandably should come only after an 
extraordinarily cautious appraisal of the potential ramifications of 
doing so.
  I stand before the Senate today to state as emphatically as I can 
that such sanctions must be imposed. While news reports of missile 
technology sales, in violation of both the 1987 Missile Technology 
Control Regime and the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act, have 
appeared in great numbers over the past several months, the problem 
clearly has history going back years that the administration continues 
to ignore at our and our allies peril. Were the problem not one of such 
duration, the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act, of which I was a 
principal sponsor along with then-Senator Al Gore, would not have been 
necessary 5 years ago. Were the problem a recent manifestation of 
Iranian ambitions and Russian inability or unwillingness to control the 
flow of militarily sensitive technologies, I would be willing to 
respect the administration's prerogative in the conduct of United 
States foreign policy.

  Such, however, is not the case. Developments involving Russia and 
Iran--and I am not intending to ignore China, simply focusing on a more 
immediate and larger scale problem of the moment--are indicative of a 
more systemic problem not conducive to quiet diplomacy and seemingly 
endless patience. The Teheran Times boasted in November 1995 of 
Russia's intransigence in the face of United States efforts at 
dissuading it from providing Iran with nuclear technology. Earlier that 
year, Russia's Minister for Atomic Energy, Viktor Mikhailov, spoke of 
his Government's intention to sell Iran a centrifuge for the enrichment 
of used nuclear fuel. More recently, reports of contracts being signed 
between Russian companies and research institutes--organizations with 
which the Government maintains an integral relationship--for the 
provision of missile components, including guidance systems, laser 
equipment, wind tunnels for the testing of warheads and missiles, and 
militarily sensitive materials like tungsten-coated graphite, all 
illuminate a problem of enormous magnitude that, Moscow's protestations 
notwithstanding, nevertheless reflect minimal effort on that 
government's part to impede the flow of such technology to Iran.
  Russia sees its economic interests as lying very much in closer 
relations with Iran. Pipelines transporting Caspian Sea oil and natural 
gas present Russia with potential revenue in the hundreds of millions 
of dollars, should it prevail in dictating future pipeline routes. 
Iran's announcement last year of a joint shipping venture with Russia 
similarly illuminated the depth of the growing economic relationship 
between the two countries. The economic importance of Iran to Russia 
and Russia's lack of viable exports other than the very weapon systems 
that threaten United States interests in the Middle East have created a 
dilemma, but one with which we must come to grips.
  Moscow, similarly, must confront the implications of its actions or 
inactions with respect to the transfer of militarily sensitive 
technology. It clearly places enormous economic importance on its 
relationship with Iran, but it needs to be reminded that it fails 
within the range of the very missiles it is helping Iran to develop. 
Russia may, in the end, find itself selling Teheran the rope with which 
to hang itself.
  The administration must comply with existing United States laws. It 
must take Russia to task, in the form of economic sanctions, for the 
continuing problem of missile technology transfer to Iran. Russia must 
be made to see that its economic well-being does not lie with 
transactions that threaten United States interests. Russia desperately 
wants recognition as a major global player despite its inability to 
influence events militarily or economically far beyond its borders. 
When the United States, Germany, or Japan coughs, much of the 
industrialized world catches cold. When Russia coughs, Moscow catches 
cold. If Russia wants to see the Group of Seven be permanently enlarged 
by one, it must accept that its economic future lies with the 
democracies of North America, Europe, and Asia--not with rogue regimes 
that seek to threaten the interests of those nations.
  The Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act mandates sanctions against 
both foreign companies and governments for the transfer of missile, 
chemical, biological and nuclear weapon technologies as well as 
advanced conventional systems. It further provides for discretionary 
sanctions. Russia has thoroughly violated the act, as well as the MTCR. 
Not only has it transferred to Iran missile and nuclear technology, it 
has sold to Teheran advanced surface-to-air missile systems, three 
Kilo-class attack submarines with which Iran fully intends to asserts 
its control over the vital Strait of Hormuz, modern T-72 main battle 
tanks, and MiG-29 fighter and Su-24 strike aircraft. If the cumulative 
effect of these weapon sales does not violate both the MTCR and the 
Iran-Iraq Act, then nothing does. And, Mr. President, as a principal 
sponsor of the latter legislation, I can personally attest that, 
irrespective of administration determinations constructed to suit its 
policy preferences,

[[Page S11040]]

these transfers from Russia do violate both the letter and the intent 
of the law.
  The administration must act on this issue of utmost importance to 
United States national security interests. The Middle East lies at the 
center of our National Security Strategy and the force structure 
exercises that repeatedly postulate the likelihood of future conflict 
in that strife-torn region. The administration has not presented to 
Congress any reason, compelling or otherwise, for its refusal to abide 
by Public Law 102-484 and the MTCR. Congress must demand that it do so, 
or impose sanctions accordingly. Its failure to do so is inexcusable. 
The ramifications of that failure will be serious indeed, and the costs 
will inevitably be paid in American blood.
  That is why we are introducing legislation to toughen existing 
statutes by making the imposition of sanctions more certain and 
requiring that the administration report to Congress information on 
weapons sales that will better enable the legislative branch of 
Government to determine for itself whether past failures to impose 
sanctions have been warranted. Governments must be held accountable 
when entities within their borders act dangerously irresponsible.
  The administration must comply with the law, or sacrifice its role in 
the formulation of U.S. foreign policy in one of the most important 
regions of the world.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Iran Missile 
Proliferation Act of 1997, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Lott. 
This legislation is critically needed because of dangerous recent 
developments in the Middle East, namely disturbing reports that 
indicate Iran is acquiring terrifying weapons of mass destruction at an 
alarming pace.
  Iran has become the most serious threat to stability in the Middle 
East and is rapidly developing the means to strike Israel. Very 
recently, Israeli and American intelligence have discovered that, due 
largely to technology obtained from Russia, Iran may soon have the 
capability to begin assembling and testing ballistic missiles capable 
of reaching Israel and other vital targets in the Middle East.
  Russian companies are providing Iran with crucial technologies, 
including wind tunnels for the design of missiles, lasers, and special 
materials for missile construction. There are even reports of over 
9,000 Russian advisers working in Iran on a variety of military 
projects, and Iran earlier this year tested a Soviet-designed rocket 
engine.
  Iran, one of America's foremost self-proclaimed enemies, has been 
linked to numerous anti-Israel terrorist attacks ranging from taking 
hostages and hijacking airlines to carrying out assassinations and 
bombings. These incidents include the taking of more than 30 Western 
hostages in Lebanon from 1984 through 1992, the bombings of the United 
States Embassy and the French-United States Marine barracks in Beirut 
in 1983 and the Buenos Aires terrorist attacks on the Israeli Embassy 
in 1992 and on the Argentine Jewish communal building in 1994. An 
Iranian ballistic missile capability would have enormous strategic 
repercussions for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Iran possesses 
chemical weapons, and quite possibly could be only a few years away 
from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  Clearly, the United States must adopt a stronger approach toward 
Russia. To its credit, the administration has tried every diplomatic 
effort with Russia. Vice President Gore and other senior officials have 
addressed this issue at the most senior levels of the Russian 
Government, including with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister 
Chernomydrin, but these efforts have met with little success. Further 
discussions are set for November, however, and I believe Congress must 
act now to enact a more forceful policy which will ensure Russian 
cooperation.
  The Lott-Lieberman legislation requires the President to submit a 
report to Congress 30 days after enactment, providing a list of the 
entities that have been implicated in the transfer or attempted 
transfer of goods, technology, or technical assistance that has 
contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic 
missiles. Highly targeted sanctions will be imposed on these entities 
30 days after the submission of the report, unless the President waives 
them under limited circumstances.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital measure which takes 
concrete steps to halt the spread of ballistic missile technology to 
Iran and to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am pleased to join with the Distinguished Majority 
Leader in sponsoring S. 1311 regarding arms sales to Iran. This is very 
critical legislation. If the relevant governments cannot regain control 
over their weapons sellers, Iran will have a ballistic missile 
capability within months instead of years.
  Mr. President, on Tuesday, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told 
me, ``Dealing with proliferation is the highest priority item of this 
administration.'' In the national security field, she has the right 
sense of priority. And certainly, Iran is the leading problem country.
  The legislation we are introducing today calls on the administration 
to report on which foreign entities are contributing to Iran's missile 
ambitions. For example, the Washington Times has recently reported on a 
number of important Russian organizations involved in this trade. 
Special metals and associated technology are said to be involved. If 
necessary, sanctions against the named entities will be imposed.
  I hope sanctions will not be necessary. I have some confidence that 
foreign government leaders will fulfill their commitments. But it may 
become necessary. We already know Iran has a chemical warfare 
capability and we suspect it has nuclear and germ warfare ambitions. We 
cannot allow a sponsor of state terrorism like Iran to obtain a 
ballistic missile delivery system.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the 
October 20, 1997, issue of the Washington Times be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Russia Sells Iran Missile Metals

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       A secret Russian production center completed a deal with 
     Iran late last month to supply high-strength steel and 
     special foil for Iran's long-range missile program, The 
     Washington-Times has learned.
       According to a classified United States intelligence 
     report, the Russian Scientific and Production Center Inor 
     concluded an agreement in late September to provide an 
     Iranian factory with four special metal alloys used in long-
     range missiles.
       The report contradicts assurances made by Russian officials 
     only days before the report that Russia had no involvement 
     with the Iranian missile program.
       The report, labeled ``secret,'' says a two-month effort by 
     Inor to market four alloys to Iran's Instrumentation 
     Factories Plan, part of the Iranian Defense Industries 
     Organization, has ``borne fruit'' with the Iranian agreement 
     to buy the material.
       ``With an eye to establishing a long-term business 
     relationship, the Russian firm offered to give the Iranian 
     firm a discount on the total value of the invoice,'' the 
     report states.
       The deal, worked out between Inor Director L.P. Chromova 
     and the Iranian factory director identified as A. 
     Asgharzadeh, amounted to $48,000 for 620 kilograms of alloy, 
     plus several hundred dollars in shipping and packaging costs.
       Efforts to locate and contact Inor were unsuccessful, and a 
     U.S. official said details about the facility are known only 
     to the CIA.
       A CIA spokesman declined to comment.
       The deal includes Inor's offer to provide ``thermal 
     treatment'' for the alloys ``so that the Iranians could 
     process the material themselves,'' the report said.
       The Iranians have bought 240 kilograms of the high-strength 
     steel alloy known as ``21HKMT'' for $24,000, the report said. 
     The steel will be sent in bars that U.S. officials say the 
     Iranians will shape for missile-casing material.
       The remaining materials are alloy foil designated by Inor 
     as ``49K2F,'' ``CUBE2'' and ``5ON'' that are being sold in 
     sheets 0.2 millimeter and 0.4 millimeter thick.
       The special foil is used to shield guidance equipment in 
     missiles--material that is needed only for longer-range 
     missiles.
       ``This gets into the whole business of the longer-range 
     ballistic missiles that they are seeking to develop,'' said 
     one Clinton administration official familiar with the issue. 
     ``There are a number of countries that are very, very 
     concerned about these Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles.''
       During meetings with Vice President Al Gore in Moscow Sept. 
     19 and 20, senior Russian officials, including Russian 
     President Borris Yeltsin and Prime Minister Victor 
     Chernomyrdin, provided the administration with 
     ``commitments'' that Russia is not assisting Iran's missile 
     program, according to a senior White House official.

[[Page S11041]]

       Asked if the administration believes those commitments have 
     halted the missile trade, the senior officials said: ``The 
     answer is, we are not satisfied. We're still concerned about 
     ongoing activities.''
       The official declined to comment on the Inor case, but 
     said, ``to the extent that we see activities going on that we 
     think are contrary to the assurances we've gotten from the 
     Russians, we are making an effort to bring that to their 
     attention and asking them to follow up.''
       One official said ``21HKMT'' is a specialty steel that Iran 
     does not produce. The steel is a key material used by North 
     Korea and Iran for missiles, but it is not controlled under 
     the 31-nation Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
       The Clinton administration has sought to add the alloy to 
     the MTCR control list, but those efforts have been blocked by 
     Russia and France, the official said.
       Inor is one of several Russian scientific and production 
     centers identified by U.S. intelligence agencies as being 
     involved in Iran's development of a liquid-fuel missile 
     similar in design to North Korea's Nodong missile.
       In 1996, Inor prepared several contracts with Iran's Shahid 
     Hemmat Industrial Group, which is in charge of Iran's liquid-
     fuel missile program. Inor brokered deals to supply the 
     Iranians with laser equipment, special mirrors used in 
     missile testing, maraging steel used in missile casings and 
     composite graphite-tungsten material.
       Russia's Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute has been 
     helping Iran build a wind tunnel.
       The Times disclosed last month that several Russian 
     entities were involved in Iran's program to build two 
     derivatives of the Nodong missile, the Shahab-3 and Shahab-4, 
     that will be fielded within three years.
       According to an Israeli military intelligence report 
     provided to the CIA and the Pentagon in January, the Iranians 
     have worked closely with the Russian Space Agency; 
     Rosvoorouzhenie, the Russian government arms-export agency; 
     the Bauman Institute; the missile manufacturer NPO Trud; a 
     firm called Polyus and other institutes.
       The Israeli intelligence report identified Yuri Koptev, 
     head of the Russian Space Agency, as being connected to the 
     project. Mr. Koptev is Mr. Yeltsin's representative in talks 
     with the United States on the issue.
       Asked about Mr. Koptev's role in the Iranian program, the 
     senior White House official said Mr. Koptev was ``irate'' 
     during the meetings in Moscow and felt disclosure of his role 
     was ``an unfair slam.''
       The official said Mr. Koptev has been helpful in seeking to 
     resolve U.S. concerns.
       Mr. Koptev told U.S. officials attending the Moscow meeting 
     that he did not want U.S. aid to the Russian space program to 
     ``collapse'' because of U.S. opposition to the Russia-Iran 
     cooperation, which Mr. Koptev described as ``important in my 
     world, but a secondary issue,'' the official said.
       The official said he believes the Shahab-3 is ``within 
     Iran's basic technical capabilities.'' For the Shahab-4, ``I 
     think the Iranians are more heavily dependent on external, 
     and in particular, Russian, assistance'' to field the system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM.
  S. 1312. A bill to save lives and prevent injuries to children in 
motor vehicles through an improved national, State, and local child 
protection program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                   the child passenger protection act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
designed to increase the awareness and education of parents and public 
safety professionals with respect to the proper use and installation of 
child safety seats.
  This legislation, the Child Passenger Protection Act of 1997, is 
nearly identical to legislation introduced in the other Chamber earlier 
this year by the gentlewoman from Maryland, Representative Morella. It 
would make $7.5 million [i.e., seven point five million] dollars 
available to the Secretary of Transportation in each of the next two 
fiscal years--FY'98 and '99--for the purpose of assisting State highway 
agencies, police departments, and child passenger safety organizations 
in setting up and promoting such programs.
  To receive funding under this bill, a program must focus on 
preventing death and injury to children under the age of 5 years old. 
The program must educate the public about all aspects of the proper 
installation of child restraints using seat belt hardware and other 
supplemental hardware or modification devices. The program must also 
educate the public with respect to the appropriate child restraint 
design selection and placement as well as harness threading and harness 
adjustment. Finally, the program must train and retrain child passenger 
safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical 
personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of child 
restraint use.
  As the parents of three children under the age of 5, all of whom 
still ride in child car safety seats, my wife and I can attest to the 
fact that these considerations require a great deal of attention. My 
wife Jane serves as Honorary Chairperson of the Detroit SAFE KIDS 
Coalition and has been deeply involved in the issue of car seat safety 
for some time, along with a number of other child protection advocacy 
issues. This past Labor Day, I was the sponsor of a Senate resolution 
that provided permission to the National SAFE KIDS Coalition to use the 
Capitol Building grounds for the kickoff event of the National SAFE 
KIDS Buckle Up Campaign. The entire Abraham family participated in this 
event. Our family has filmed Public Service Announcements on this issue 
for the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and we are planning to sponsor and 
to participate in car seat safety check events in the coming months 
back in Michigan.
  Based on our shared experience, I can assure my colleagues that there 
is often tremendous confusion among both parents and public safety 
personnel when it comes to the proper selection, installation and use 
of child restraint devices in motor vehicles. Results from regional 
child restraint clinics demonstrated between 70 and 90 percent of child 
restraints are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused, which is 
often caused by the complication and wide variety in seat belt and 
child restraint designs. And while there are several public-private 
partnership programs which exist that focus on the dangers of air bags 
and the proper placement of children in cars equipped with air bags, 
many of these programs fall short of specifically educating parents and 
public safety officials on the proper methods for installing and using 
child safety seats.
  It is my hope that we can focus the country's attention on this 
serious problem and, in the process, prevent needless death and injury 
among young children. While this legislation alone will by no means 
solve the problem, I believe it is a positive step towards better 
educating parents and public safety officials on this important public 
safety issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1312

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Passenger Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The annual losses in the United States from motor 
     vehicle collisions are estimated to exceed 800 deaths and 
     80,000 injuries to children under the age of 5.
       (2) It is estimated that properly used child restraints in 
     motor vehicles can reduce the chance of serious or fatal 
     injury in a motor vehicle collision--
       (A) by a factor of 69 percent with respect to infants; and
       (B) by a factor of 47 percent with respect to children 
     under the age of 5.
       (3) Some of the most common seating position designs that 
     have emerged in motor vehicles during the last decade make 
     secure installation of child restraints difficult and, in 
     some circumstances, impossible.
       (4) Results from regional child restraint clinics 
     demonstrated that 70 to 90 percent of child restraints are 
     improperly installed or otherwise misused and the improper 
     installation or other misuse is largely attributable to the 
     complication and wide variations in seat belt and child 
     restraint designs.
       (5) There is an immediate need to expand the availability 
     of national, State, and local child restraint education 
     programs and supporting resources and materials to assist 
     agencies and associated organizations in carrying out 
     effective public education concerning child restraints.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Child restraint education program.--The term ``child 
     restraint education program'' includes a publication, 
     audiovisual presentation, demonstration, or computerized 
     child restraint education program.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
     Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory 
     or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 4. CHILD PASSENGER EDUCATION.

       (a) Awards.--The Secretary may enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements

[[Page S11042]]

     with, and may make grants to, State highway agencies and 
     child passenger safety organizations that are recognized for 
     their experience to obtain and distribute national, State, 
     and local child restraint education programs and supporting 
     educational materials.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Funds provided to an agency or 
     organization under a contract, cooperative agreement, or 
     grant under subsection (a) shall be used to implement child 
     restraint programs that--
       (1) are designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children 
     under the age of 5; and
       (2) educate the public concerning--
       (A) all aspects of the proper installation of child 
     restraints using standard seatbelt hardware, supplemental 
     hardware and modification devices (if needed), including 
     special installation techniques; and
       (B) appropriate child restraint design selection and 
     placement and in harness threading and harness adjustment; 
     and
       (3) train and retrain child passenger safety professionals, 
     police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and 
     other educators concerning all aspects of child restraint 
     use.
       (c) Distribution of Funds.--An agency or organization that 
     receives funds made available to the agency or organization 
     under a contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under 
     subsection (a) shall, in carrying out subsection (b)--
       (1) use not more than 25 percent of those funds to support 
     nationwide child restraint education programs that are in 
     operation at the time that the funds are made available;
       (2) use not more than 25 percent of those funds to support 
     State child restraint education programs that are in 
     operation at the time that the funds are made available; and
       (3) use at least 50 percent of those funds to implement 
     national, State, and local child restraint education programs 
     that are not in operation at the time that the funds are made 
     available.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS AND REPORTS.

       (a) Applications.--To enter into a contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or grant agreement under section 4(a), the 
     appropriate official of an agency or organization described 
     in that section shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The appropriate official of each agency or 
     organization that enters into a contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or grant agreement under section 4(a) shall 
     prepare and submit to the Secretary, an annual report for the 
     period covered by the contract, cooperative agreement, or 
     grant agreement.
       (2) Reports.--A report described in paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) contain such information as the Secretary may require; 
     and
       (B) at a minimum, describe the program activities 
     undertaken with the funds made available under the contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or grant agreement, including--
       (i) any child restraint education program that has been 
     developed directly or indirectly by the agency or 
     organization and the target population of that program;
       (ii) support materials for such a program that have been 
     obtained by that agency or organization and the method by 
     which the agency or organization distributed those materials; 
     and
       (iii) any initiatives undertaken by the agency or 
     organization to develop public-private partnerships to secure 
     non-Federal support for the development and distribution of 
     child restraint education programs and materials.

     SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare, 
     and submit to Congress, a report on the implementation of 
     this Act that includes a description of the programs 
     undertaken and materials developed and distributed by the 
     agencies and organizations that receive funds under section 
     4(a).

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       For the purpose of carrying out section 4, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of 
     Transportation $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999, of which not more than $350,000 may be spent in any 
     fiscal year for administrative costs.

                          ____________________