ripon forum spring 2002

IPON RING 2002 000

a for the

Hill

ORUM VOLUME 37 NUMBER II

Cl2002 Peak Deslgn

B ecause we want our family to have a long history, too.

A t Pfjzer. we've cared for generations. Since 1849, we've refused to believe that the ills

of the world can't be cured. We're determined to fjnd cures for the diseases that touch all our families.

We search day in, day out, year in, year out looking for treatments for diabetes,

for the cure for cancer, for new antibiotics to fjght deadly new strains of bacteria. We've worked

with a passion for over a century and a half. This year we're devoting SS billion to research.

Why do we work so hard? Because families are depending on us.

Life is our life's work. www.pfizer.(om

LLJ

u :z:

I I

Publilher The Ripon Society

I'ttsident Hon. Bill F~n:tC1

Executive Di~cf(lr Lori H~u

Comn.mications Dftctor, Editor Scot Christenson

Design/An D~i(ln Chrinina F. Valis

ProduCfMIn CCI www.cci-scrvica.com

., 2002 byThe Ripon Society All Rights Rescrvro

One Year Subscripdon: $25.00 individuals $10.00 INdents

Pt:riodicals postage p;>id at Washington. D.C. and additional mailing offlCC$.

Postmaster, scnd address clunges to: The Ripon Forum 501 Capitol Court, NE Sui te )00 Washington, D.C 20002

Ripon Forum Spring 2002

THE

RIpON F ORUM

Contents VOLUM E 37 NUMBER n SPRING 2002 A Better Campaign Refonn ..... ....... .. ..... .......... .... .......... .... ..... .. .................. ........ .. .. 4 US. Representative Tom Petri

A Ripon lnterview wirh Rep. Vernon Ehlers: Creating a Better Curriculum .. ........... 5 Scot Christenson

Credit Where Cred.it Is Due ................ ... .... ... ......... . , ................. .. ... .. .. ... .... .. ........... 9 Michael Z ak

The Farm Bill ............... ... ... ................................. .. .. .......................... ... .. .... ..... .... 10 u.s. Representatives John A. Boehner and George R . Nethercutt. J r.

Peace or Nuclear War in Kashmir ... .... ...... , ... ... ....... ... .. .. ....... .............................. .. 13 U.S. Representat ive Joe Pitts

Two Bright Ideas to Reduce Drug Prices ....... ........... ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .................... .. .... 14 A lexander Tabarrok

2002 Rough Rider Awards Dinner ... .. .. ... ....... .... . , ... ......... ... .. .. ... .. ..................... .... 16 Scot Christenson

IRS Reform ............. ............. .................... .... ... .. ............ .. ............ .... ... ... ... ............ 18 U.S. Representative Rob Portman

2002 Midternl Election .................................. ... .............. " ............... ........ .. ... ....... . 19 Scot Christenson

The State of the Nation Project ............ " .. ...... .. .. .. ... .. ..... ...... ... ................... .. .. .. .. ... 22 Geopolitical Realignment ............... ......... .... ... .. ... .. ........... ................. ... ..... .. ........ . 23 Thomas H enriksen

Agriculrural Bioterrorism ........ ... ... .... ......... . , .. .................. ... ... .......... ........... ....... .. 24 Hmry S. Parker

A Ripon Interview with Rep. Mark Kirk: From Carriers to Congress ... .. .............. .. 27 Seal Christenson

The Ripon }r,rum (ISN 0035-5526) is published quarterly by The Ripon Society. The Ripon Society is a rese:ltCh and policyorganintion. [t i, ht:adquartt:~d in \Vashington. D.C .. with National Associate members throughout the United States. Ripon is supported by chapter dues. individual contributions. and revenues from its publications. Commenti. opinion edi torials and letters (0 the maguine should be ~ddrel$cd to: The Ripon Forum, 501 Capitol Court. N E Suite 300, Washington. D.C. 20002 or may be (r:,"smilled electronically to: [email protected]

3

A Better Campaign Reform by U.S. IIcp" cscnlalivc Tom J'clo'i (II-WI)

RrprtUnlaliw Tom Prlr;

resident Bush signed [he McCain-Feingold campaign finance ref ann bill into law earlier this year, and you may have thought that you'd heard the last of the subject for a

while. Not so. That bill will help to restrain large cor-

porate ~soft money" donations to polit ical org.mizations which, many believe, have improperly influenced government policies and corrupted the political process. It also interferes - perhaps unconstirutionally-with free speech during Clmpaign seasons which, of course, are the times when free speech cou nts the most . Accordi ngly, I supported McCain-Feingold with consid-erable ambivalence, and look forward to the resolution of various court challenges.

I have long thought that there is a better approach to campaign finance re-form, and I recently introduced the latest version of my key proposal. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D- PA ) signed on as an origi-nal cosponsor, so this bill already quali -fies as "bipar ti san~.

Most, I think, would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is through a broad base of donors, but the econom ic realities of mode rn-day cam-paigning virtually oblige many candidates and political parties w focus most of their efforts toward collecting funds from a few large donors. T his reality alienates many Americans from our political system and opens politicians up to the now-familiar charge that we arc "bough t and paid for" by special interests.

While the new McCain- Feingold reform focuses on li miting the impact of large contributions, other reforms have been designed to make it easier for small donors to playa role. For example, from 1972 to 1986, the fede ral government offered a tax credit fo r small political con-tributions. Th is offered an incentive for average Americans to contribute to cam-paigns in small amoun ts while simulta-neously encouraging politicians to seek financial support from a larger, more di-

v~rse pool of potential supporters. The word ~poo l ~ is particularly apt

here, since the key advan tage of num~rous small donors is thai their varied in-terests and concerns dilute the influenc~ of large con tributors.

Ten geographically and politically di-verse states currently offer thei r own tax credits or deductions for political contri-butions. T hese state- level credits differ in many respects, but all share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to provide a counterweight agai nst ~fat cats" and special interests.

The federa l tax credi t, however, was eliminated by the 1986 tax overhaul. My bill, H.R. 4980, the Citizen InvolvemenT in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, would bring it back in an updated form.

Under my proposal, taxpayers could choose between a 100 p~ rc~ nt tax credit for political contributions to federal can-didates or panies (limited to S200 pe r year), or a 100 percent tax deduction (lim-ited to S600 per year). Both li mits would be doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and candidates promote the use of these cr~dits and deductions, the program can have a real impact.

Of course, manyrefonners say that th~ best way to pay for campaigns would be through public fina.ncing rather than private contributions of any size. An advan tage of my plan, however, is that it encourages tax-payers to contribute to the campaigns they actually support - without also being forced to fund, through the treasury, candidates they abhor. m Tom i+/ri repmrnlJ H'Uwn..rills 6th lJiJlrill. Nr is Viu Chair oflhe Ilouse Edula/;olf & the II&liforrr, IIlfd Ille 7ransponatirlll & Ilffasllllc/Ilre COlf/III;llrrJ.


Creating a Better Curriculum A R ip on Interview with us. R ep resentative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)

Ill' Scot Christenson, rOl"Um Editor

Rtpwrntotiw VTrmm EhlFrJ

ongressman Vernon ). Ehlers of G rand Rapids,Michigan, has long been an active advocate of improving science, mathematics, engineering, and technologycducation al me K- 12levcl. Ourlined in Ihe 1998 repon "Unlocking Our F uture~, the first significant study on federal suppon of

science in fifty years, Rep. Ehlers stressed that the U.S. educational system needs to better prepare students for the technology-based world of IOmorrow. In 2000, he introduced the National Science Education Acts with the intentions of ensuring that all students arc provided with the knowledge to thrive in a global high tech society well into the future. He sat down with the Ripon Forum to further discuss his views on the current state of education.

Ripon Fon..om Spring 2002

R F: W idl your P h.D. in nuclear physics from Berkeley, you are Ih e on ly research phys icist in Congress. H ow has this uni que perspect ive mo lded your legislative goals and what effect has il had o n your view of Congress?

R~p. EhI~rs: First of all , I'm the first physicist ever elected to the U.S. Congress and the first at this level of government since Ben Franklin. T hc resuh is similar to my experiences in Ihe coun t)' comm ission, state house and state senate leve l: T here are so many techn ical and scientific issues to be dealt with today in the legi slative arena, and most members have lit tle 10 no knowledge about them. So ;\5 a result, in every office I've held, a lot of stuff just got dumped on me, whethe r I was on the com mittee deali ng with it or not. It's kind of ironic: most of my contributions to Congress have been largely anonymous. They have been mostly counse ling and advising other people and other committees about certain issues.

Things come to me which are totally irrelevant in terms of achieving anything related to the legislature. For cxample, l was responsi ble for computcrizing the House. When I got he re, it was easier fo r me to se nd an email from my office to M oscow than to send it from my office to an office 20 feet down the hall. It then became my job to nenvork 11,000 computers. When I started I said: 'This is the kind of job where no one wili ever notice you did il or thank you for it ifit works, but you'll get all the criticism and blame if it doesn't.'

RF.Thc Democra ts have long enjoyed the public's confidence on issues pcrt:lin ing to educatio n. Polls indicated that Re-publican s had gained ground , only to lose it in recent mo nths. To what do you att ribute thi s reversal and what can Republi -cans do to become known as the educatio n party?

5

R tp. E hlers; Well, the President has it right. People have been trying to re form education fo r twenty years, and the President did it in 11 months; and that's very good. Of cou rse, he had a lot of help from us, particularly in the H ouse. I put a lot of time into that tryi ng to get the math/science parts of it pe rfect. Simply, the President addressed the basic issue of how can we improve education, and that's what brought all of us up to the present destination. Since the n, we have fallen back intO arguing about ideo logical issues that many Republicans R(p_ Ehlen talk with Ripen F()rum Edil()r Se()! Christms()n hold true, like vouchers and local control. According to the evi-dence, the majority of the public doesn't agree with this, and so we begin to lose support. T here are other ways to achieve your chief agenda. We learned that in Michigan during the last elec-tion. ] tOld them if we put vouchers on the ballot. we'd go down 2-1, but they decided that they could win it. So they went out and spell! gobs of money. worked ve ry hard, and wen t down 2-1. You've got to face the facts and focus on achievable reforms.

RF; On the subject of vouchers: parents could use these to send their children to religious schools, which some argue is a viola-tion of the First Amendment. Is there any way around this?

R ep . Ehlers; I think that most people say that this is a violation of separation of church and state. Which incidentally is not in the First Amendment, which is a distinction I would like to make. I don't thin k there is anything whatsoever in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or in most state constitutions which would prohibit state funds to send kids to private schools or even religious schools. America is the only nation in the world that doesn't allow this. Almost every European nation and Canada has this provision that you can pick the school. If you want to go to a Catho-Lic school, fi ne. The money goes to the school that you choose. The idea that somewhere in the Constitution there is 'separation of church and state' is a terribly faulty concept. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Some people would Like to think so, and would like to put a wall in between church and state. I would maintain in fact that the present practice is contrary to the First Amendment, because it states that first of all, that the government may not impose any rules, but secondly that it may not restrict the exercise of religion. I say that prohibiting use of funds from the government to go to private schools means that lower income par-ents cannot send thei r kids to religious schools. That means we are imposing a restriction on the exercise of their faith. So, I would turn

6

the argument arou nd and ask those who are opposed to this why they think we should violate the First Amendment.

On June 27. 2002. the Supreme (ourt ruled that vouchers do not violate the First Amendment as long as parents had a choice among a range of secu-lar and religious schools.

RF; Studies reveal that American students are far beh ind other developed nations in the areas of science and math. \hat are these COUll tries doing right and what can we borrow from their educational syStems to incorporate into our schools?

Rep. Ehlers: First of all, if you look at our TIMMS (T hird Interna-tional Mathematics and Science study) schools, the tops are in the Netherlands. They have a very homogeneous country and school system with national agreement that their survival as a nation de-pends on their ability to remain the best at trading. And so their students, when they graduate from high school, are fluent in four languages. So the national unity is one aspect.

Another issue is a major impediment in America: We thrO\\I away about half of our mathematicians and scientists through a cultural attitude that says that minorities and women are not good at math and science. It's nonsense. American women and minori ties arc not less intelligent than those in C hina, Russia or Europe, where roughly 50% of the scientists and engineers are women. That is a cultural phenomenon, and I am very frustra ted with that.

In summary: America does not regard the learning of math and science as high a priority as other developed nations. We throw a\vay half of our potential scientists, the women and minori-ties, who are told by our culture, though sometimes by the schools, that they arc not good at it. More importantly, with the workplace

Ripon Fon.rm Spring 2002

l !

becoming so technical, we desperately need technically trained people in the workplace, not scientists or engineers, just technically trained people who understand the basics of science and math.

My favorite story now is something I heard on NPR rc-cendy. They interviewed a service manager at a garage to talk about the demise of the grease monkey. They asked him: '\oVhat do you look for when you're hiring a mechanic?' and he said: 'The first thing is that they have to have passed high school algebra and high school physics.' Now, when I was in high school, kids who didn't even take or had flunked out of these courses were the ones who became mechanics. Today you can't be a mechanic without a high school education. Why? Modern cars arc computer-driven machi nes. You have to understand some math and science to follow the diagnostics. You can repeat this in almost any workplace. We as a nation have got to recognize this. It's a high priority for our kids to know the basics of science and math so that they can find a higher payingjoh. RF: It seems that part of th e problem is that American stu dents are apathetic to science and math . What can be done to get them excited about these subjects and encourage them to excd? Rep. Ehlers:Better curricu la and better tnined teachers and, of course, parents who think it's important . The single greatest determinant of the success of a student is to have at least one interested and involved parent. If you don't have that, it's really tough. The second mOSt important is a weUtrained, weUquali fied teacher. Third most important is curriculum; and fourth most importam is access to a decent building.

If you look at the T IMMS tcst agai n and oth er international tests, American kids do quite well at math and science up until the fourth grade, then it starts to fall off. What's happening is that young kid s are coming to school very curious and excited about science an d math, but at many schools these courses are nothing but book memorization. Memorize the facts, feed them back and get yourselves out . I've talked to high school students who say: ~Man, high school science is the worst subject we have.~ And I say: "What's

wrong?~ They hand me their textbook, which is two inches thick, filled with facts that they're supposed to learn. That's not science. As a scientist I did scie nce, I didn't read about science, I did science and that's the best way to teach it.

RF: I think that shows problems with our standards of learning: that students are JUSt taught to regurgitate specific facts without cultivating an understanding of broader concepts.

Ripoo Forum Spring 2002

&p. Ehlers: And that's the fault of the curriculum and of the teach "'.

RF: Can we find a balance of esse ntial learning and expe rien tiallearning?

R,p. Ehlers: Well , yes. In fact, it's being done in certain class rooms. I've see n it; I've talked to students and it works. The reason it isn't propagating the way it should is as I said, lack of teachers. They have gone through the old system. They have not been exposed to the higher educational institutions to bet ter understand science and how to teach it, so they go into schools and teach the way they had been taught. The science and edu cation departments from the unive rsities need to get together and develop programs to educate future teachers on science and math and how to teach them. This has started happening. The University of Arizona Physics Department is doing a great job. A few universities in Michigan are picking this up. I've spoken to a lot of university presidents, and 1 say that this is their most important task as educators. Some of them are doing it.

RF:The co mputer ha s prove n to be an important educa tional tool. Is there any way we can ensure that all kid s have access to a co mputer and that those computers h ave the sa me capac ity?

Rep. Ehlas:The capacity of the computers is not all that impor tant. Its what's on the computer, the software that makes the

7

difference. A lot of the compute rs that you're going to see in classrooms arc what I call the world's most expensive flash cards. It asks you a question, you answer it, t hen it shows you thc answer and tells you if you're right or wrong. You can do that with li ttle pieces of paper with a question on one side and the answer on the other. We've been using them for years. That's not a very appropriate usc of a computer and overlooks their potentiaL

What you rea lly want to use is interactive software. These programs arc so weU developed that they ask the student a question and analyze the nature of the answer. I f the child answers incorrectly, then it asks a series of questions to reinforce what the child needs to get the right answer the original question. And ifit gets a different wrong answer, :lbrain it has a whole different sequence of questions built in. You keep doing thar until the stu-dent is getting right answers in the category. It's not even interactive at that point. It's just strategically thinking. RF: As computers and multimedia are becom ing more and more prevalent in the classroom, do you think that there is a danger people wilJ mistake advancements in tech nology with improve-ments (0 me quali ty oflCS50n plan, basically using a new technol-ogy to reach an o ld curriculum?

Rtp. Ehlers: Oh that '5 part of the problem. Schools arc just buying the computers and nOT knowing how to harness their potential. Al-though a lot of this is still in the development stage and some of the software isn't out there yet, the school boards, principals. superinten-dents and teachers all should be asking, ' How arc we going to usc them to their maximum advantage?'

RF: Most people do 11 0t d isagree that reach e rs are under-paid, bu t there is no real way to mea sure their pe rfor-mance ve rs us th eir reward s. Wh at can we do to in sure that our teache rs are properly compensated for thei r effec-tiveness in the classroom ?

Rep. Ehlers: First of all, I disagree that there is no way to measure performance. This is often said within teaching circles. Where I disagree is the basically Marxist attitude that everyone be treated equally and all teachers will be on the same pay scale, no matter how well they perfonn or how poorly they perform. There an: many variations of teachers. I've secn it as a professor visi6ngdassrooms. I' ll never forget one visit. because I've never felt so sorry for the students. Two classrooms side by side. Same grade level, same curriculum, in this case science. I visited one classroom and it was being taught beautifully and the kids wen: understanding it and the teacher was superb. The kids really got it and they loved it. I went next door to the other classroom, and the teacher was totally disor-ganized. It was in shambles. She didn't understand the program

8

and the kids never learned anything and I fclt so sorry for those kids and, fra nkly, for their parents. T here are differences in teachers. They arc measurable. I think a layman could measure the d iffe r-ences by observation.

The biggest anomaly in the schools is failure to mcct the mar-ketplace. Now, this argument that it is hard 10 measure perfor-mance you will hear in ever bu siness you go into, yet every busi-ness in this cou ntry does measure the performance of its em-ployees and reward those who perform welL And here we have science teachers who, by and large, can double their salary if they leave teaching and go intO a commercial position. There is absolute ly no recognition of that in the schools and in fact the unions arc opposed to any pay differentiation. So what hap-pe ns? The best and brightest leave. The dedicated stay and there may be one or two of the best and brightest who arc dedi -cated, but in many cases, the ones that stay are the ones who art' least competent in their field. So today, a student taking sc ience in middle school or high school, 65% of their It.'3chers do not have a major or a minor in the subject that they arc teachi ng. \hen you go to physics, it bTCts even worse. Something like 50% of all high school physics teachers never took even one college course in physics. So not paying according 10 abiliry and matching the market has taken a very deleterious effect on teaching science and math in high schools and middle schools, panicularlyon high schooL

RF:: A lot of teachers have expressed a sense of powerless ness when dealing with disruptive students who are interferi ng with the educatio n of o thers. What sorT of things ca n be done to deal with these srudents?

Rep. Ehlen: That's one I don't han! an answer for. I do know hO\vcver, that part of it has to do with the stmcrure of the public schools and stare laws about punishment oflcids and so forth. I'm not of a mind to go around bearing up kids, but rou must allowa certain kvd of discipline. You cannot teach in a classroom where there is no discipline. J find it interesting, since mychildren \vent to private religious schools. Con-trary to what some public school advocates would have you believe these arc not to keep them away from unruly studenrs. In fact, the schools they went to were actively recruiting kids from other schools who\vcrc having problems. 1 was pan of a group who raised moncyto pay for their tuition. When they got in that setting, they were okay Sometimes, when you have a school that allows discipline and more-over requires discipline, the discipline is there. You can't ha\'e an atri-mde that you can't do anything about it and that's just the way it is. You're just not going 10 solve the problem. But I reallydon'l have an anS\vcr for tbatone. I think that is one of the toughest problems III we face toda),. Scot Christenson is the editor of The Ripon Forum.


Credit Where Credit Is Due The Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

bv Michael Zak .

uring the Kennedy administration, toe Repub lican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, incJudinga comprehensive

new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a refilm by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, President Kennedy abruptly decided TO submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. H astily drafted in a single all-!ughter, the Kennedybill fell well short of what the GOP had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up fora protracted filibuster against the civil rights hill. The bill \v:lS before a comminee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Con),,'1'Css he urged Representatives and Senators to do "more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined~. TIlOugh he shared Presi-dent Jolmson's convictions on safCguarding the constitutional rights ofb\acks. if Richard Nixon had been in the VVhite House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling tosee a Republican achieve the vic-

Ripon Forum ' Spring 2002

tory would have blocked his legislative initia-ti\'C in Congress.

T he 1964 Civil Rights Act was an up-clate ofRepubliean Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14'" amendment was not sufficient

E'V~~etf Di~hen (R-ILJ Smate Minority uader; 1959- 1969

constitutional authorization, so the 1964 ver-sion had to be wrinen in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful ofho..v Democratopposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960CiviI Rights Acts, PrcsidentJohnson wamed Dcmocr:tts in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from ~?Jh!iClIlS, he had to~ them that he would

not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit the GOP for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson plared nodirea role in the legislative fight, sothatit would not bcperceivoo as a par-tisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House ofReprescntatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Nlinority Leader Everett Dirksen had linle trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and fonner presi-dential candidate Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Micllael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, oflatcr Watergatc fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a fanner Klansman whom Democrats still call ~the con-science of the Senate~, filibustered against the civil rights bill for founeen straight hours be-fore the final votc. The Houseof Represen-tatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% ofRcpublicans and 63% ofDcmo-crats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and oniy6 Republi-cans voting no. President Johnson signed thc new Civil Rights Act into law onJuly 2, 1964.

Overall, mere was little oven resistance to me 1964CiviI Rights Act. The struggle was not )'ctOVCIj ho\\"\:vcr, as most southem state go .... cm-menrs remained under the control of segrega-tionist Democr:tts. It was a Republican federal judge who was one of the most responsible for dcscgrcgaring the Souths public schools. Ap-pointt-dby President Eisenhowcrin 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, AJabrunas infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law in his very first decision. During the 196Os, Judge Johnson advanced civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox. aM othcr DemocrJ.tGov- III ThisessayisadaptedfromMichael Zak's Back to Basics for the Republican Party, a history of /hl' GOP See www.rrpubliwllbasics.comfor more infonna/ion about/he book.

9

Down On The Farm Bill

by U.S. Ilcp" cscnlalivc John A. Bochner (1l0H)

R~pmtnta/j'lJtJohn Bothntr

he deal recendy reached by H ouse and Senate Farm Bill negotiatOrs represents a giant leap backward in federal agriculrure policy. Under this legislation, farmers won't get the

safety net they are looking for; they will get caught in a trap. a trap that will lead [0 overproduction, lower prices, and more reliance on the federal government for their moome.

Governmem payments already repre sent more than 40 percenl of net farm in-come.1bis percentage will only increase O\'er the course of this bill, as the measure pushes agriculture away from the market and [0-ward more government reliance.

10

This agreement gready expands the fed-eral. government's role in American agrirulnU'C. Some examples:

A new dairy program will lead to over-production and lower prices. A new, untested Conservation Security Program will draw needed funds from proven conservation programs. And new peanut, apple, onion, pea, and lentil programs will drain billions more from the federal budget.

This bill will quickly surpass budget estimates and lead to dramatic deficits. And it subsidizes the biggest farms at the ex-pense of those it claims to help: family farm-ers and across the nation.

Let it be dear: Farmers and taxpayers deserve bener. Nty opposition to this bill is based on my support for family farmers, American taxpayers, and the free-market upon which our economy is dependent.

Alternatively, I proposed that we

Farmers and taxpayers deserve better. My opposition to this bill is based on my support for family farmers, American taxpayers, and the free-market upon which our economy is dependent

To make manersworse,programs that had been eiimina[ed years ago, such as the controversial and outdated \-\'001 and Mo-hair program. have been given new life un-derthe new Fann Bill.

By expanding and creating new pro-grams, the Farm Bill ignores in~stment in programs that could make farming families less dependent on government payments. Research, trade promotion, and rural devel-opment programs are short-changed in the Farm Bill, leaving many farmers in the cold.

should pass a supplemental aid bill now to help farmers during this year's crop season. And once the November elections are over, when sound, long-term policy takes prece-dence over typical Washington politics, we should revisit the Farm Bill and make r."I the right choices for the nation. W

John Btuhner repmmts Ohio's 8th District. He il the Chair of the House Edu(olion and Workforce Committee ond also serves on the Agri(ulture andJoint Printing Commit/us.

Ripon FonJm Spring 2002

The Farm Bill: Growing stability for farmers and consumers

by u.s. lIepI'escntative Gcol'ge II. Nethel'cutt, ]I: (II-WA)

fter MO }'~ars of meetings, hearings, and negotiatio ns. the Farm Securityand Rural In~stment Act 0(2002, known as "the F ann Bill, ~

Ii, fi nill.y going "0 1>

CONSERVATION, RURAL INVESTMENT, ANO RESEARCH MAKE UP SIGNIFICANT PARTS OF THE FARM BILL

The new Farm Bill provides an 80per-cent increase in spending for conservation programs, with significa nt increases going to the Environmental Q!ality Incentive Program (EQJP) to address ground water conservation issues, as well as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habi-tats Program (WHIP) and the Farmland PrOtection Program (FPP), Rural credit pro-grams are authorized in the Farm Bill that enable rural communities to improve thei r water and sewer programs and enhance broadband and local television service, in

12

addition to assistance for fi refighter and emergency personnel training. Agriculture research is the backbone of our nutritious, stable food supply. T his bill authorizes in-creased funding for research programs by $80 million a year to help find ways to in-crease res istance to pests, disease and drought while also developing heal thier and more producrive crop varieties for the grow-ing world population.

NUTRITION PROGRAMS CONSTITUTE THE BULK OF AG SPENDING

Nutrition programs that benefit chil-dren, seniors and low-income citi'l..ens ac-count fo r about 55 percent of total USDA spending. Nutrition program funding is in-creased S6.4 billion in this year's Farm Bill

New Logo

to enhance many of the ass istance programs available to children, seniors and others in need of help. The bill provides additional food to the school lunch program including a pilot program that will provide fresh fru its and vegetables free to schools.

We have learned from our experience with our energy supply that being in a posi-cion of relyingon foreign markets for necessi-ties can lead to great uncertainty and insta-bility. This Farm Bill makes sure that Ameri-can fanners and consumers don't face that same instabili ty crisis with one of our r.t most precious resources: our food supply. ....,

Georgt Nethercutt rtpmmts Washington's 5th Distri{t. H t Jl!rtllS 011 the HOIIJl! Committees 011 Appropriations and $cit!1lu.

002 marks the 40,h anniversa ry of the Ripon Society and the organization is co mm e morating th e event by unve il ing a striking new logo . Symboli zing the Ripon Society's

co mmitment to promoting Repu blican values and shaping America's future, the logo stylishly incorporates a trumpeting elephant and the US flag. Created by Peak D esign, the image also emphasizes movement and energy, reflecting the Ripon Society's role as an act ive publ ic policy and research organization. "The new logo is a fitting visual expression of the organization's identity and mission," said Bill Frenzel, President of the Ripon Society.


Peace or Nuclear War in Kashmil'

II)' u.s. IIcp,cscnlative Joe ')ius (II-PA)

Rrtrumla/iw Jot Pitts

at away, in one of the most beautiful and exotic parts of the world, lies a region that has been embroiled in conflict for far too long. At the wcStern end of the Himalayas,

Kashmir is caught among dle clash of Hindu India, Muslim Pakistan, and Communist China. TIueewars have been fough t bet\vecn India and PakisCUl since the British Empire ga'--e indepenclcncc tothc region in 1947. Along the wa); China carved out its cr.Vl1 piece of the Kashmiri pic. Forcr.'Crfiftyyears, inswgents h1\'e croSSt.'d the line of control, bullcl5 havc flown, and people havc died. Still. nothing seemed to change. But one thing has changed: each of dle players now has nuclear weapons.

When the British ended colonial ruie, Kashmir \Y'aS given the oprion ofbelonging to India or to Pakistan. Despite its predomi-nantly Muslim population, the Kashmiri ruler opted to merge with India. The result was three wars and a ceasefue that has I1L ... cr held.


For decades, the United Nations has called for a referendum to decide the matter. India has refused to allow it, insisting irsclaim to Kashmir is legitimate.

In 1998, India and Pakist:ln both tested nuclear weapons. An all-out \'\fllf between the nvo is now as unthinkable as a nuclear exchange benveen the United St:ltes and the Soviet Union once was. The price is simply too high. Nevertheless, Indian nationalists and al Q!eda-backed Muslim insurgems persist in trying to dest:lbilizc the siruation. In recent months, things have gorten very dangerous indeed.

In October, Muslim terrorists attacked the provincial capital in Srinigar, killing 40 people. in March,a Hindu mobkillcd 1,200 Kashmiri Muslims prompting a hundred times that number to flee their homes. In May,Muslim insurgents attacked an Indian army camp, killing 30 peoplc. As the sirua-tion worsened, over a million soldicrs from I n-dia and Pakist:ln massed along the line of control and have been glaring at each other for weeks. Some of them have been shooting at each other. The Indian navy took to sca.

The people of Kashmir \vere frightened. TIle people oflndia and Pakistan were fright-cned. TIle world, needing no reminder that both nations have nuclcarwcapons, was fright-ened as well.

Early inJune, an oppommity for nego-tiation appeared. Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf. and India's President, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, both artended a mul-tinational security summit in the central Asian cultural and economic ce nter of Almaty. Kazakhstan. Russian President

Vladimir Putin met with both leadt.'J'S and ancmptcd to brokera sctdement.

MlLID:UTJfagreed tomcet. India, oo..\o\..'\'Cf, has always rcjl"Ctl-d ou[Sidc mediation of the conflict. Vajpa)'ce refused.

Emer the United States. A day after the Almaty summit. Deputy ScCfCt:lry of Stale Richard Armit'ah'e arrived in Pakistan to sec if he could succeed where Putin had failed. He needed a gesture &om Musharraf---somethg he could convince Vajpayce to reciprocate. Musharraf agreed to stop iVluslim milit:lnts from sneaking across the line of comrol into Indian territory. Musharraf insists that Pakistan has never lent more than moral, political. and diplomatic support to the Muslim insurgents. Neverthcless, this was a majorcommitment.

With Musharraf's agreement in his pockct, Secretary Armitage got back on his airplane and headed to New Delhi. There. he conveyed Pakistan's commitment ro Indian lcaders and strongly urged thcm to reciprocate. Thcy did. India agreed to lift its ban on flights through Indian airspace by Pakistani aircraft. India also called home its nary.

Presently. there arc still over a million trigger-happy soldiers along the line of control benvee n India and Paki stan . Secretary Annitage's eff'ons may have averted \'\fllf for now, but the crisis is not over.

Ho" .. evcr brilliant Secretary Armitage's diplomacy has been. more will need to be done. Theworld community has all but ignon..-d this conflict for five decades.

In Congress, J and some of my colleagues have formed a bipartisan Kashmir Forum to educate our colleagues on the conflict and work for peace. No peace will be had, however, until the world diplomatic community begins to cxertas much energy in Kaslunir as it has in the world's other hot spots. And. as with all such conflicts, both par- r:1 ties will ultimately need to compromise. II1II

JOt PitlJ JU1.IU 011 the Hou se Commerce IJ/U/llltN'1/(uiOlUl/ &/lltioll.s Aida Connl1iUel:J,

13

Two Bright Ideas to Reduce Drug Prices hy Alcxandcl' Taba ... ok

v~ryone is conce rned about the ri sing price of pharmaceuticals but no one seems to know what to do about the problem. To be sure, solutions are being offered all the time. Among the most popular proposals afC imposing price comrols on pharmaceuticals, using the

bargaining power of the federal and state governments to extract "voluntary" price concessions from pharmaceutical companies, or making it easier for generic drugs to reach the marketplace sooner 35 the McCain-Schumer bill proposes.

None of these so-called solutions, however, comes to grips with the fundamenta l tradeoff between lower drug prices and morc new drugs. Developing a new drug is an increasingly ex-pensive and risky process. The average cost of bringing a drug to market is now approximarely 5800 mjllion, and for every 5,000 compounds that are tested in the laboratory it's estimated that only one wiJi end up as a marketed drug. Pharmaceutical firms spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research only because, if they get lucky, they will invent a blockbuster drug that will earn them billions of dollars in profits. Take away the prospect of a big payoff at the end of the 12 to 15 years of research that it takes to bring a new drug to market, and the incentive to de-velop new drugs is substantially dimin ished.

Almost every proposal to control drug prices pretends that this fundamental tradeoff doesn't exist - but it docs. The


tradeoff, however, is not insurmountable. Two proposed reforms would in fact lower drug prices without reducing the incentive to create new drugs: patent buyouts and FDA reform.

Harvard economist Michael Kremer explains patent buyouts in his chapter in the new book Entrepreneurial EcorlOmics." Bright Ideasfrom the Dismal Science (Oxford University Press). Kremer argues that the government, or a wealthy non-profit foundation, should buy pharmaceutical patents and turn over the rights to the public for free. P atent buyouts would reduce pharmaceuti-cal prices by 60 to 70 percent because instead of having to wait a decade or more for the patent to expire, generic-drug manu-facturers could immediately begin to sell the new drugs in a competitive market.

Patent buyouts would not impede innovation because the innovating firm would be well paid for its research. Indeed, the

required clinical trials. Clinical tri-als do have value but the FDA does not weigh the benefits of additional clinical trials against the costs of drug delay; drug loss due to high costs making the produc-tion of some drugs unprofitable, and higher drug prices.

The FDA can make tv,o kinds of mistakes. It can permit a bad drug, and it can ('IiI to permit a good drug. T he FDA's biased incentives are a result of the fact that when it permits a drug that turns out to be bad, it is pilloried. Butwhen the FDA refrains from permitting a drug that would have done much good, it usually suf-

fers little criticism. In addition, although the FDA's ap-

Patent buyouts would not impede innovation because the innovating firm would be well paid for its research.

proval process is a significam factor in the high cost of drug research, the FDA largely escapes the blame for high drug prices.

As a result of these biases, FDA officials are very concerned that people might die from unsafe FDA-per-mitted drugs bur are much less concerned about the fact that people will die from a lack of effective therapies or

patent buyer could easily increase the incentive to innovate by raising the buyout price.

But suppose a patent buyer does not know how much the fights to a new drug arc worth? What is to stop the patent buyout from becoming a wasteful subsidization of low-quality research? Kremer offers an ingenious solution to this problem: invite patent holders to tender their rights in an opcn auction. Open and competitive bidding for the rights to the new drug would establish a good estimate of its true value. T he government could then use information from the bids to buyout the patent - perhaps with a bid somewhat higher than the top auction bid. Obviously, if the non-government bidders never win the auction they have no incentive to bid accurntely- the very motivation for conducting the auction - so Kremer suggests that in randomly chosen auctions the patent Tights go to the highest non-government bidder, rnther than to the government.

Patent buyouts would be expensive, but the savings to con-sumers of pharmaceuticals would be even larger. And, as the gov-ernment is an important buyer of pharmaceuticals through Medic-aid and Medicare, a portion of the buyout price would return to it through direct cost-savings.

Kremer's patent buyout idea complements proposals to restruc-ture the FDA.

The S800 million cost of bringing a new drug to market is not a fact of nature but is largely due to the expense of running FDA-

Ripon FOf\Jm Spring 2001

high drug prices. One FDA reform that should be immediately implemented is

to allow any drug that has gained permission from the FDA's coun-terpart in other advanced countries to be sold in the U.S. (For other reform proposals see www.FDAReview.org.)

If a drug is permitted in the European Union, for example, then within 90 days the FDA should automatically permit it in the U.S. H istorically, such coun tries have permitted drugs faster than the U.S. - with few adverse and many good consequences. Avoiding unnecessary delays and wasteful duplication of approval processes will reduce the costs of bringing new drugs to market, encourage more pharmaceutical research, and reduce drug prices.

Scientific advances are making pharmaceuticals an increasingly imp.ortant aspect of medical care. Calls for lower prices are thus likely to become more strident as time passes. But the regulatory attempts to reduce prices invariably reduce the introduction of newer, better drugs. If we want to reduce drug prices while maintaining or increasing the incentives to innovate we need to think more entrepreneurially.

Alexandl'r Tabarrok, thl' director of research for the Independent i nstitute, a public policy research organization hl'adquartered in Oakland, Calif, editorifEntrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, andco-authorofFDAReview.org.

15

The Ripon Society Holds

he Ripon Society proudly announced the 2002 Rough Rider Award recipients during its annual dinner held at the J'N Marriott in Washington, D.C. on May 8. The awardees included Congressman

John A. Boehner (R-O H ), Congressman Howard Coble (R-NC), House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), CongrcsswomanJennifer Dunn (R-WA.), Congrcssman Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT ) and Congresswoman Marge Roukema (R-NJ).

In spired by the words and values of Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Rider Awards Dinner seeks to recognize those who share the vision of the 26'" president of the United States and have made significant contributions in the areas ofleadership, capitalism, conservation and democracy. About 500 people attended the event, which was Co-Chaired by Juanita Duggan of the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America and Robert Holleyman of Business Software Alliance.

~We are privileged 10 honor these indi-viduals who, in the words omlcodore Roosevelt, "stood in the arena~ and did not abandon their principles in the face of adversity," said the Hon-orable Bill Frenzel, President of the Ripon Soci-ety. "Tonight'S awardees represent the broad spectrum of the GO P and highlight the basic themes that unite the Republican Party."

Each honoree received an impressive framed sabre and scabbard as a symbol of the courage, conviction and perseverance that marked President Teddy Roosevelt's career.

Congressman Coble, who was honored for his work in the protection of intellectual prop-erty, said the sabre would hang proudly in his office.

~l appreciate the fact that a group of mod-erate Republicans is large enough to accommo-date a conservative like me, ~ said Rep. Coble,

16 Ripon Forum Spring 2002

ough Rider Awards Dinner

cnson


"and conversely, the Republican Party is large enough to wannly embrace the members of the Ripon Society,"

Fre nzel personally presented a special Rough Rider Award to Congresswoman Roukema who had rcccndy announced her re-tiremen t after 22 year of sClVice on the Finance and Education Committees.

"] will miss working wi th myconstituents every day to represent their interests and serve their needs," said Rep. Roukcma ... I will also miss the give-and-take of the democratic pro-cesses of the Congress. Now I will turn myat-tention to finding new ways to help children and families. I will continue to speak out on behalf of good public policy and reforms where they are needed. ~

All of this years awardees have pushed for innovative policy solutions on a ,vide range of is-sues and have helped restore the core values of the Republican Party through the mcssagesofLin-coIn, Roo5(.'vclt,and Reagan.TR would surcly have been proud to have included these leaders among his beloved Rough Riders.

17

Progress Being Made on IRS Reform, but More Work Must Be Done

by u.s. IIcp,cscntativc lIob 1'00lman (11-011)

R~puun/a/i'fH Roh Portman he Internal Revenue Service -

our nation's tax collector - will never be the most popular federal agency. After all, it is responsible for seeing that part of our hard

earned money goes to the government, and it is asked to administer acomplex, confusing and sometimes unfuir tax code. At the same time, it needs to provide top-quality service and be effective in meeting taxpayer needs. This is something I have been working for over the last five years. In 1996, I joined former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska) in co-chairing the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. This Commission turned the tables and audited the I RS to detennine why the agency had gotten so far off tmck. In our final report, issued in June 1997, we made dozens of recommendations on how to improve the I RS, which formed the basis for the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. Now that it has been nearly four years since the bill was enacted, it is time to assess me progress we have made

18

on IRS reform. One afthe first things we d id four years ago was enact more than 50 new taxpayer rights. Among the new rights we implememed was shifting the burden of proof away from the taxpayer to the IRS in court. We also made sure that taxpayers had the right to receive damages from the I RS fo r negligence in collection actions. Another important new taxpayer right expanded protection for ~innocent spouses" - most of whom are women who were unfairly targeted by the I RS for the tax liabilities of their ex-husbands. In addition to granting ne" .. rights to taxpayers, we also created a new, public-private IRS Oversight Board to serve as an independent watchdog and bringprivatescrtor expertise to me I RS. We streamlined the IRS bureaucmcy by strengthe ning the ro le of the I RS Commiss ioner and giving him more flexibility to bring in managers and experts from outside the agency. And we provided incentives to encourage people to file their taxes electronically, which leads to fewer errors that result in audits. T hese changes have taken some time to implement, but we are seeing some improvement in the way the JRS opemtes. I n 1998, according to one national survey, the public's mtingof the IRS was at an all-time low. TIlls same survey shows a 44 percent improvement in the public approval mting in me last t\VO years. A recent General Accounting Officcreport found mat the I RS has devoted morc resources to taxpayer service, such as telephone assistance and infonnation systems. Taxpayers are now having an easier time getting their questions answered, and getting them answered

correctly. During the 1990s, 80 percent of taxpayer calls were met with a busy signal. In 2002, even with increased volume, 66 percent of taxpayers who wanted to speak to a customer service representative got through. In 2002, wait time for questions on tax law was 2.58 minutes - down from 4.27 minutes a year ago. In addition, the IRS web page is one of the most helpful web pages in the federal government. In 1999, there were 1.12 billion hits. In 2001, the website was accessed 2.6 billion times. And during the last tax season, nearly one in three taxpayers chose to file elcctronically- an increase from 24.6 million in 1998 to 46 million in 2002 . VYhile I am glad to see these changes are having an impact, there is still a long way to go. I would like to see the role of the IRS Oversight Board expanded, and see the Board become more involved in setting up long-tenn strategies and goals that would help improve the I RS. I also believe that Congress needs to take steps to help the IRS do a better job. To make compliance easier on taxpayers and make enforcement easier for the IRS, Congress needs to simplifY the tax code, and I will soon be introducinglegisJation to do just that. The I RS may never be the most popular federal agency, but there's still no reason why it can't be more helpful to taxpayers. ] am glad to see the IRS making steady progress, and I look forward to continuing our efforts to make sure that taxpayers get the fair treatment they deserve. m Rob Portman r~pments Ohio's 2nd Distria. H~ serves on the House Budget and Ways & M~ans Committres.


2002 Midterm Election Races to Watch

--

- -

-

, ,

- , ~ . . - . ~ ., ? ? ~ " ., -'.

'"10 " f , ,--


\ ..

?

BATILE FOR THE HILL

With the party divisions within the H ouse and Senate the closest they have been in 50 years, rhe stakes are extremely high for the 2002 midterm election. The GOP's prime political goal is to get the one seat they need to control the Senate while thwarting Dick Gephardt's aspirations to become Speaker. However, the Democrats feci they are within striking distance of reclaiming rhe six scatS they need to C2pture the House while also strengthening the hold on the Senate they gained whenJimJelfords defected from the Republican Party. Historical precedent is on the side of the Democrats because the party of the sitting president has suffered a nct loss of House sealS in 32 of the last 34 midtenn elections and has not fared much better in the Senate. The GOP hopes that President Bush's general approval ratings will reverse the trend.

FIGHT FOR THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION

In gubernatorial races, the Democrats are looking to continue their hot streak that has seen them win 12 of the last 16 elections. All indications are that the COP is in for a rough cycle, having to defend 23 Scats of which several appear quite vulnerable. With only 11 of their seats on the ballot in 2002, the Democrats are in the position to gain a number of governors' offices. Again, the COP hopes that the popularity of President Bush and his involvement in the races will help fight off the surging Democrats.

The following are fhe raw lhal will he key i1l1haping the political landscape and tuhap! lipping lhe halanu of power.

KEY:

@) Sm i~ vi~wed ;U vlJln~rabl~ and has ~n targ~tt

GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA Conservative businessman Bill Simon,J r. was the surprise winner over the moderate fo rmer Los Angeles M ayor Richard Riordan in the GOP primary. Even top Bush political advisors believed that Riordan was the logical choice for the nomination because his liberal tendencies made for a better match-up against incumbent Gray Davis (D). Facing a steep uphill battle, Simon will look to exploit Davis's less than stellar approval rating due to me state's energy prob-lems and budget deficit. While pundits may consider Simon too con-servative to win in a left-leaning state like California, it must be re-membered that the same was said about Ronald Reagan in 1966.

FLORIDA ~ Assuming that Janet Reno wins the Democratic nomination, @I the Florida gubernatorial race will probably be one of the

most emotional elections in 2002. Bitterness s[ill remains from the 2000 presidential outcome and Jeb Bush has had to endure a few accusations that he manipulated the Board of Elections to favor his brother, although there is no evidence to indicate any such ef-forts. Reno also carries her share of controversy because of the Elian Gonzales fiasco and may ("lce huge opposition in southern Florida where passions still run high over the incident. Everyone had better hope that there in no need fora recount this time around.

ILLINOIS The GOP has been safely entrenched in the Governor's office since ta\ \1l _ 1976, but Gov. George Ryan (R) may prove to have been

~ l.tt=l aoncma.n wreclcingcrcw that knocked open a hole for the Democrats. Plagued by scandals thatatOllC point prompted

almost half the state's population into believing he should resign, Ryan is retiring after setving one tCl11l. Sensing the breach, Rep. Rod Blagoj(:vich (D) ,vill count on ~'tate AttomeyGeneraJ Jun R)~Ul (R) (no relation) having to attend to too much damage control to salvage the scat for the GOP.

MICHIGAN Term-limited Governor John Engler (R) is an imposing political ta\ \IL. fo rce, but his influence may not be enough to propel ~ ~ Republican nominee Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus into the

seat he is vacating. T he Democrats believe Posthumus lacks the public profile needed to win and that state Attorney Gen-eral Jennifer G ranholm (D) has the following and momentum to capture the office. It will be a tight general election that many pundits believe will tilt in favor of the Democrats.

PENNSYlVANIA With Mark Schweiker (R) declining to seek a full term after being @ ~ elevatcdtoGovemorwhenTomRidgc(R)w"astappedto

head the Office of Homeland SeOlrity. state Attorney

20

Genera! Mark Fisher ,vas given the daunting task of defending the Republican's hold on the Governor's office against Democratic heavy-weight Ed Rendell. The liberal RendeU. former Philadelphia mayor and w-chainnan of the Democratic National Committee, alrc:tdy passed his first major hurdle in a primaryagainst centrist Bob Casey (D) in a battle that was billed by many as the barometer of the ONe's direction. Initial polls fuvored Rendell over Fisher for this highly pri'l,(.-d seat ..

SENATE ARKANSAS Democrats hope that after campaigning on a platform of family values, Sen. T im Hmchinson (R) may have alienated his base con-stituency by divorcing his wife and marrying a former staffer. Look-ing to unseat Hutchinson will be state Attorney Genera! Mark Pryor (D). Pryor enjoys name recognition through his futher, former Sen. David Pryor(R), and will attempt to define Hutchinson as too conservative for Arkansas

IOWA The race in Iowa will be on the national radar this election becltuSe @ the GO P believes that it is where they have one oftheir best

chances of picking up a Senate scat this cycle .. Neither party seems to have a firm grip on the state (Gore narrowly won the state in 2000 with 49% of the vote), bur the Republicans have a sn ong candidate in Rep. Greg Ganske who has already served fou r terms in the House .. Early polls show that incumbent SenatorTom Harkin (D) has the edge over Ganske, but the gap is rapidly dosing ..

MINNESOTA Not only does Senator Paul Wellstone (0 ) have a liberal approach @ to politics, he apparently has a liberal approach to honoring

promises. T he GOP believes that his broken pledge made in 1990 and 1996 to serve only two terms and his lack of legislative accomplishments \vill compel this increasingly Republican state toc1ect former St. Paul Mayor (and former Democrat) Norm Coleman (R).

MISSOURI Jean Carnahan (D) was appointed to serve a special two year Sen-'@\ ate term after her husband Mel Carnahan (D) posthumously '+&J defeated John Ashcroft (R) in 2000 .. Sympathy fo r Carnahan seems to be f.."ld ing as polls indicate that fo rmer Congressman J im Talent (R) will make this a very close race. Both parties are prepared to spend a lot of money to secure [his seat.

NEW HAMPSHIRE Democrats are hoping that incumbent Bob Smith (R) and John Sununu (R) batter each other senseless in the primary, softening the eventual Republican nominee for Governor Jeanne Shaheen (0 ) to take on in the general election. New Hampshire is not the reliable

Ripon Fornm Spring 2002

Republican state it once was, so the GOP may have a fierce battle on its hands no matter who gets the nod.

NORTH CAROLINA The GOP looks to replace one prominent Republican with another as Elizabeth Dole seeks to take the Senate seat left by the n.'tiring Jesse ~ Helms.Undt.TmcromrolofHclms,DemocralShadlitdeconfidcncc

that they could capture the seat, but believe the vacancy has rome at a time when the shifting economy and demographics of the state gi\'C fonnerClintonstaff'cr Erskine Bowles a great opportunity.

SOUTH DAKOTA In what could shape up to be Bush vs. D aschle, round one, Rep. John Thune (R) is attempting to oust freshman Senator Tim Johnson @) (D ). Johnson's seat had looked safe until Bush convinced the

popular T hune to run fo r the Senate instead of entering the gubernatOrial race as he had originally intended. W inning in Tom Daschle's home state would be particularly satisfying for the GOP because he has been nothing short of a thorn in the side of Bush and it could be the victory that reverts Senate control back to the Republicans, costing Daschlc the M ajority Leader post. Losing the high profile post could also damage any aspirations D aschle had in seeking his party's presiden tial nomination in 2004.

HOUSE COLORADO W ith the newly fo rmed 7"" D istrict being a wide-open frontier, half a dozen hopefuls joined the rush to claim it. Both parties claim to \Jl.__ have a slight advantage, but it appears that the constituency is

~ almost evenly divided between RepUblicans and Democrats. The primary narrowed the field down to attorney Mike Feeley (D) and banker Bob Beauprez (R), but it is still anyone's race.

CONNECTICUT It doesn't get much tighter than this. Because of reapportionment, Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) had her 5th district combined with Rep.Jim

~ _ ~ l'v1aloney's (D ) 6"" district. The two incumbent moder-d"" " .if! ate candidates will now banle to win over a constiru-encythat is f.tirly spli t herween the rwo parties. T he redistricting and registration numbers slightly favor Maloney, but Johnson has won many admirers and may sway enough crossover votes because of her dedication to projects at both the local and national level.

INDIANA After narrowly losing in 2000, Chris Chocola (R) is wcll positioned to take the redrawn 2nd D istrict as his former adversary Tim Roemer ~ ~ (D ) has decided not to run again. T he Democrats have

dusted off ex- Rep.JiU Long Thompson in an attempt to fill the void left by Roemer's retirement. T hompson's track record


has been erratic, losing several races before being elected to the H ouse in 1990 only to lose again in 1994. T he G O P has to be feeli ng good about their chances of taking this one away from the Democrats.

MAINE W hen Rep. John Baldacci (0) announced that he would honor his ~ pledge to serve only fou r teons in the House and run for gover-

nor instead, a stampede of ten candidates entered the race for the.zno.t District. After primaries thinned the herd, Mike Michaud (D) and Kevin Rayc (R) are now set for a Novcmbershowdown.l\1ichaud probably will ha\'C the edge by tapping into Baldaro's strong base, but Maine has ahvays been full of swprises (as in 1992 when more votes were cast for Perot than Bush) and this election remains difficult to predict.

MARYLAND

@) ~ ~ Although represcntingthe decidedly Democratic 8th district, Connie MorcUa (R) has remained popular among her constiruents. As they have for over a decade, the Democrats have targeted Morella and hope that the redistricting that removed her few traditionally Republican communiticswhile saddling her with even more Democratic areas will be enough to finally oust her. State Senators Mark Shriver and Christopher Van HoUen arc among the &onmmncrs vying for the Democratic nomination.

PENNSYLVANIA ~ __ M any feel the GOP may have erred when they forced Rep. eI"'- T im H olden (D) out ofthe6'b District and into the 17th Dis-trict of George Gekas (R) during reapportionment. Although the district stiU trends Republican, the redrawn district contains coun-ties where H olden is incredibly popular. Because Gekas has cruised through elections relatively unopposed for ten terms, there is spC(;ula-cion that his campaign skills are a bit rusty and that the younger, cam-paign-savvy Holden can use his fiscally conservative record to attract enough votes from Gekas's base to pull an upset victory.

WEST VIRGINIA @) In 2000, Rep. SheUey Moore Capito became the first person

to accomplish something that no Republican has been able to do in W est Virginia since 1980:\vin. The Democrats think it was a fluke and are again runrungJim Humphreys and his buckets of money against her in the 2nd District. Capito has had a strong freshman term and redistricting removed achunk of Democratic voters, but she will be withom the benefit of George W. Bush's aggressive presidential r.'I campaign efforts in her state this time around. .... Swrres:Almanacrf Amman Politics; The Hill; &/1 Call; The Washingwn Pr;sr

Scot Christenson is the edilorojlhe Ripon Fortlm

11

The State of the Nation Project

arlier this year, the Ripon Socicry conducted one of the most in-depth public opinion studies to explore post September 11 America. The "State of the Nation Project" found a fundamentally changed political environment with profound implications for both political parties in the

upcoming 2002 and 2004 elections. The project revealed that through the tragic and heroic events

09/11 , Americans' attitudes toward themselves, this country, and each other have been indelibly altered in fou r significant ways:

Americans have embraced a new, unwavering patriotism. Americans have a deepened sense of unity, personal responsi-bility, and mutual respect for one another and arc moving away from the cynicism and moral relativism that have characterized the nation's cultural and political debate. Americans have reassessed their values and their priorities. Americans want political leaders whose behavior matches the selflessness of the heroic Americans they saw on September 11, and President Bush seems to be setting the standard in their minds.

President Bush has been viewed as a unifYing fo rce within the country as it transitions from the pre 9/11 world to this nC\y political and cultural environment. His leadership and broad appeal has positively changed voter attitudes toward government, politicians, and specifically Republicans.

Given the change in the country's cultural attitudes and Bush's new standing with the American people, the Ripon study identified several key findings with significant political implications for the future. Among them were:

22

The image of the Republican Party is significantly better than the D emocrat Party. Bush has motivated the base while creating opportunities to grow the party among moderate, independents and other S\ving

voter groups i.e. Catholics, H ispanics, working women, union members, and particularly suburban voters. The public's unease with the role of big business and the Re-publican Party's perceived ties to business should concern Re-publicans along with the fact that people associate the Democrat Party over the Republican Party on the values of civil rights and equal opportunities for all Americans. Voters ha\'e little tolerance for partisan ideological conflict or nega-tive messages. People want Washington political discourse to solve problems not to seIVe as means to score partisan or ideo-logical points. Voters will consider a broader array of issues when casting their votes in the futu re. Increased concern about economic security and personal safety - values according to the survey most closely associated with Republicans - creates a better context for Republicans to dis-cuss Issues.

For the GOP, the study reveals that this turn toward a new political construct coupled with the positive attitude of the public toward President Bush and RepUblicans is a unique opportunity to grow the party.

~The Ripon Society undertook this project because we believe it is important for our elected officials to understand the American people's reassessment of their values and priorities over the past year~ said Bill Frenzel, president of the Ripon Society. ~The results show that President Bush's unifying approach is setting the stan-dard for leadership post September 11 th, and has significantly r.'I improved the environment for all Republicans," said Frenzel. ...

To learn mort abollt tht aState of the Nation Project -, visit W'W'W. riponsoc.org.

Rjpon FOl1.lm Spring 2002

American Interests and Geopolitical Realignment Ily Thomas Ilcnr'ikscn

Geopolitics is not something Americans spend a lot of time thinking ahout; we leave that ro Foggy Bonom types. Bur recent developments on the international landscape warrant much more attention than they have attracted.

The Bush administration's success in moving Russia closer to the West represents a remarkable change in geopolitical al ign-ment. T he 19905 witnessed an emergi ng anti-American part-nership be tween former adversaries Russia and C hina, which Washington seemed powerless to impede.

For much of the past decade, Beijing has wooed a weak-ened post-Soviet Russia by evoking common extremist threats and resentment of U.S. supcrpowcrdom. Last July, China ob-tained Russia's signature on the Treaty of Good Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation, which, among other things, recognizcd Beijing's claim to Taiwan and further pit-ted the two states against U.S. in-tervention by highlighting the role of the Uni ted Nations.

The broadening Sino-Russian entente be~n to raise red flags. In-stances of converging interests strengthened these misgivings: China buys Russian ships and planes for its off-shore agenda. Both fight separatists in Central Asia's former Soviet republics, some of whom infIltrated western China. Beijing, the senior partner in the Russo-Chinese corporation, has been ~ining influence in Inner Asia as M oscovite power recedes. Behind China's gambit is the quest for access to the vast oil and gas reselVes in Inner Asia.

By fonningcloscr relations with me Kremlin, the Middle King-dom also hopes to break out from its perceived American encircle-ment and secure its northern border in an effort to pursue a more assertive posture, or "forward policy, ~ in the Pacific.

Ostensibly, Beijing and Moscow consummated their romance this June when Presidents J iang Zemin and Vladimir Putin


cosigned the Shanghai Cooperation Organization charter-along with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, T ajikistan, and Uzbekistan-which strengthens previous treaties on reducing forces along mutual borders and cooperating against terrorism and separat-ism. But appearances fooled no one, especially not China, for it understands Moscow's recent p ro-Western tilt.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, China's ascen-dant economy. size, and ambition seemed poised to confront a United States estranged from Russia and assailed by Europe for its unilateral ism.

George W. Bush, however, succeeded in undermining thi s looming Moscow- Beijing axis by dra\ving Putin into the U.S. anti-

terror ism campa ign, attaining the Kremlin's acquiescence in the deploy-

ment of U.S. forces in Central Asian republics, defusing its resistance to Washington's pullout of the ABM treaty, and assuaging its opposition to NATO's eastward enlargemen t by granting it greater sway with the NATO- Russia Council in May. For

Russia, it gets a more reliable partner with the United States plus the benefit of

having the United States in Central Asia. Thus the Bush administration should receive as much ac-

claim as Richard Nixon did thirty years ago for realigning China on America's side against the Soviet Union. I n the present case, Bush has moved Russia closer to the West and outflanked China on the strategic chessboard. This statecraft could result in a genu-ine realignment benefiting the West and Russia. Now it's time to turn our attention back to China and continue to engage it in a twenty-firs t-century framework of security for the great m powers. Thomas Henril:sm is a senior jellowllnd associate director at the HoO'Uer Institution.

23

Combating Agricultural Bioterrorism Protecting America's Food Supp ly

by IlclWY So l'arokclO

he attacks of September 11 , 2001, made Americans acutely aware of their vulnerability to terrorism. Now the United States is focused on improving defensive measures and

rooting out and destroying the global infrastructure of terrorism. In response to the terror is t offe ns ive , the Bush administration engineered an international coa liti on against terrorism; dedicated substantial new resources to prevent or deter this blight; has undertaken military action against blatant practitioners of terrorism; and established a new Office of Homeland Security, under the leadership of former PennsylvaniagovernorTom Ridge.

As America continues to prepare de-fenses against cataStrophes barely conceiv-able only month s ago, the threat of bioterrorism in particular looms larger than ever. Fears of anthrax, smallpox, and plague pervade the American consciousness, fu-eled by the reports that some of the plane hijackers involved in the World Trade Cen-ter and Pentagon attacks had specific in-terest in crop duster aircraft that could be used to disseminate aerosols of pathogens. Because of this, the United States has

stepped up its de -fenses against such threats.

Nevertheless, litt le attention has been given to agricul-tural biowarfa re and bioterrorism or to the roles and responsibili-ties of the public and private sectors in de-terring and respond-ing to potential at-tlcks. Few Americans appreciate the gravity of the threat of bioterrorist attacks against the American food and agriculrure infrastrucrure. This point is exemplified in a General Account-ing Office (GAO) report on combating ter-rorism released 9 days after the attacks of September 11. The report did not address threats to American agriculture, nor did it involve participation by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA). It focused only on terrorism directed against mcivilian targets"; therefore, according to GAO, it "did

not focus on terrorism directed against ag-ricultural targets." GAO explained that ag-riculture was not included in the review because it has not been designated a criti-cal national infrastructure.

But agriculrure is a critical American infrastructure. It constitutes one-sixth of gross domestic product (GD P) - over a trillion dollars a year. The food and agricul-ture sector is the United States' largest em-

Ripon FOI'\lm Spring 2002

ployer, one of eight Americans works in an occupation directly supported by food pro-duction. AgriculnLre exports total over S50 billion annually, making the farm sector the largest positive contributor to the national rradc balancc.1ne f.umingsysrem is the most productive and efficient in the world, enabling Americans to spend less than 11 percell! of disposable income on food. compared to a gl0-bal average of20 to 30 percell!.

Officials are beginning to recogn ize that this vast networkoffood and fiber pro-duction, processing, distriburion, and sales is a potential- even inevitable - target of hostile interests employing biological agents for political, economic, or criminal ob-jectives. Even the threat of anack could jeopardize consumer confidence. disrupt commodity markets, and wreak economic havoc.

American agriculnLre is often concen-trated, highly accessible, vertically inte-grated, and oflimited genetic diversity; his-torically it has been free of major disease outbreaks. sovarnnes are not routinely used. Consequently, pathogens could be intro-duced easily and spread rapid ly. Wide-spread use of antibiotics in livestock pro-duction makes U.S. animals vulnerable to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Advances in

Ripoo Forum Spring 2002

genetic engineering have raised the prospect of transgenic pathogens and pests that are resistant to conventional control meth-ods. In addition, it maybe hard to distinguish a bio-logical amck from a naru-ral disease outbreak. Signs ofinfections may be mani-fes ted slowly, delaying ef-fective response by au-thori ties. Finally, attacks agai nst agriculture may be less risky to perpetrators than attacks againST hu-mans because many anti-agriculrure pathogens afe

comparatively safe to work with. Also, pub-lic reaction may be less intense because hu-mans are nor being directly targeted (un -less the goal is food contamination), and there is currently no national policy pre-scnbingcnminal penaltics fo r biological at-tacks against targets other than humans.

The Federal Government is beginning to re spond to the eme rging th reat of agricultura l biowarfare and biolerrorism. Federal intelligence agencies, in cooperation with USDA, arc defining the extent of the th reat and br ieflllg key Government officials. Federal research agencies, led by USDA, are mobili zing resources and deve loping research plans 10 detect and idenrif}"epidemiologica11ymap, and control delib e rately introduced pathogens an d pests. Agriculture and food safety are now included in a Nationa l Security Council (NSC) framework for preparedness against weapons of ma ss destruction. Yet, despite these initiatives, the

United States is poorly prepared to prevent and respond to attacks on its food and agriculture infrastructure. The Federal Government must actquiclcly and decisively to protect food and agriculture systems. If we fuiJ to act, the consequences could be fur more damaging and long lasting than a direct and more visible terrorist attack against people.

To combat this threat, it is critical that the Federal Government. state and local governments, and the agribusiness sector clearly identify mutual roles and responsi-bilities and develop a coordinated strategy to address the threat. US DA should lead the development of this strategy.

To assu re readiness, USDA should provide Federal leadership with a coordi-nated, stand-alone, interagency strategy and prog ram to combat ag ricultural biowarfare and biorerronsm. Stand-alone atte ntion and USDA leadersh ip are both desirable and j ustified because the de-partment has overall Federal responsibil-ity for food safety and security and a broad range of programs and capabilities to deter and respond to threats against food and agriculture. It also has connections with

the grassroon; interests and the national agribusiness specttum through an extensive network offield offices, agricultural ex-tension specialists. research fa-cilities, and land-grant univer-sitit.'S in virtuallycvcry Ameri-can county. In fact, USDA may be unique amOllg Federal agencies in the closeness ofits ties to constituencies. If sub-sumed into larger Federal pro-grams, agricultural concerns could be buried in the enor-mouslycomplex national secu-rity and counterterrorism bu-reaucracy, where it would be overshadowed by h uman health issues, cyberterrorism, and more conve nti o na l threats.

2S

However, stand-alone attention should not be construed as acting in a vacuum. A national program to protect food and agriculture must be strongly linked to other national security and counterterrorism programs through the NSC structure and should involve stra-tegic partnerships with other Fede ral, state, and local agencies and nongovern-mental organizations - all of which have programs and capabilities that can con-tribute to the agriculture program - and with the private sector. Key objectives of a national strategy should be to:

26

establish clear, well-coordinated Federal interagency mechanisms for gathering, assessing, and sharing sensitive intelli-gence information about hostile threats to U.S. food and agriculture increase significantly Federal research capabilities related to animal or plant health, food safety, and agricultural biowarfare and bioterrorism expand Federal staff in key areas create well-coordinated interagency mechanisms among USDA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the De-partment ofDefensc for collaborative fo-rensics investigations identity and include clements of other Federal terrorism and bioterrorism strat-egies that are applicable to countering agricultural bioterrorism expand and strategically site national supplies of critical vaccines and phar-maceuticals to protect against and treat the agricultural diseases most likely to be launched by terrorists establish a nationwide electronic com-munications and data management network that links the private agribusiness community with emer-gency management staff, field re-sponse personnel, and key Federal, state, and local agencies develop and implement a national emer-gencydiscase responsc plan for food and agriculrure

establish clear roles, responsibilities, ex-pectations, and performance measures, as well as coordination mechanisms, for Federal, state, and local public and pri-vate organizations and interests identity feasible options for providing fI-nancial assistance to agribusiness inter-ests impacted by biological attacks develop and implement professional and public education programs improve international cooperation to de-ter and respond to agricultural biowarfare and bioterrorism.

The consequences of a biological attack against U.S. food and agriculture could be devastating - in terms of both economic impact and the undermining of public confidence in the nation's food supply. A program to protect against bioterrorism will not be cheap - an investment of several hundred million dollars is needed. H owever, given the potential risk and the fact that the United States is ill prepared to deter or respond to an attack, it cannot afford not to act.

An aggressive, well-coordinated effort to combat agriculrural bioterrorism will also have substantial ancillary benefits. Many antiterrorism actions could simultaneously help prevent or contain natural livestock and crop diseases, including a plethora of newly emerging diseases. Natural dis-eases cost U.S. agriculture billions of dol-lars annually. In addition, the effort could improve the safety of America's food, al-ready an important national priority. Fi-nally, this initiative will strengthen part-nerships and improve coordination among agencies and organizations with respon-sibilities, programs, and capabilities to address a significant national threat. Per-haps, because the threat is more focused and manageable than other potential threats against the nation's infrastruc-tures, an effective, well-coordinated pro-gram may provide a model fo r other r.'I counterterrorism efrons. W

Henry S. Parker, institute for National Strategil Studies


From Carriers to Congress A Ripon Interview w ith us. Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL)

&pmtnlative Mark Kirk


epresenting the 10'" Districtoflllinois, Congressman M ark Kirk shares many of the fiscally conservative and culrurally moderate values of his former boss and predecessor, Congressman John Porter (R). W ith a solid background in policy making, Rep. Kirk entered his freshman tenn in 2(X)()

after gaining valuable legislative experience working for Rep. Porter, the State Department, and on the staffof the U.S. House International Relations Committee under Chairman Ben Gilman (R-NY), Rep. Kirk is also a Lieutenant Commander in the Naval Reserve who has been involved in operations in Turkey, Yugoslavia, and Panama. He rccenclydiscussed how his background helped develop his perspective on several issues with the Ripon Fornm.

RF: How has your experience as a Naval Reserve officer helped shape you as a Member of Congress?

Rep. Kirk: That's probably the most important experience I have that influences me as a Congressman. In 1946, three quarters of the Congress had military experience. Tociay it's less than twenty percent bur rapidly f.1.d ing. There arc only fifteen members of Congress who served in the mili tary after Desert Storm. The most important power that we have is [Q decided between war and peace. W ith less than five percent of the Congress having any experience in moclern conflict, it has put an incredible weight on those of us with such experience to explain how the modern post-Desert Storm military carries out its duties. It means that in the back rooms of the committees and in the cloakroom you gctcalled on a lot to explain what's happening.

RF: You were Congressman Porter's C hief of Staff early in your political career. What 's the most important thing you team ed in that time?

Rep. Kirk. I think the most important things I learned from that expe-rience were the complCJcityofthe process on Capitol Hill, how details

27

really matter, and the importance ofbipartisan cooperation. Building cross-party alliances makes the difference between acrually getting action to the President which people sign and merely making it a debating point.

RF: The Bush Administration seems to be at odds over how lO approach global warming. How do you think the United States should proceed?

IVp. Kirk: Climate change is ahvays occurring. It's very important to understand the cycle of the sun and the standard ecological processes that we know cause climate change. But it's also clear that man is having some effect. I W".lS a Congressional Observer to born the Kyoto and the Buenos Aires Climate Change Conferences, and I was wor-ried about the direction the Clinton Administration was taking. There is a need forimemational action on climate change, but that's not what the Kyoto treaty stands for. It represents a principle that the United States andJapan should restrict ourl,>Teenhouse gas emissions but that China and all other developing countries shouldn't. Unfortunately; China is the second largest polluter in the \vorld, and sometime in the next decade, China will become the number one polluter in the \vorld. Mother Nature doesn't check the zip code of the pollutant and think that the pollutant coming from one country is okay where one coming from another is not. Foran effective climate change treary, we need all countries to participate. So that's why I would support going back to the negotiation table, putting China back into the Kyoto treary, and then rarifying it.

28

RF: Do you believe that Bush's proposal to have a program of ,'oluntary emissions reductions and improving study in climate studies will have an effcct?

&po Kirk I think that that is a good step, but again I would be for mandatory controls, as long as all countries participated.

RF: There has been heated debate over racia] profiling fo r several years, but the events of9/ 11 have brought even more attention to this issue. How can we protect nauona] securiry while a]so pro-tecting the rights of the individual?

Rrp. Kirk Racial profiling doesn't work. Deciding to search an airline passenger based on the color of their skin is faulty logic. Terrorism experts will tell you that in effcct what we ha\'e to do is build:tn airline securiry system much like Israel's. TIley do aggressively profile the characteristics of a passenger, but it's not based on race. Usually, key factors are purchasing a ticket with short notice, using cash, multiple ticket purchases, being una\vare where you are staying that night or )QUI" final destination. Then, certain national characteristics arc checked, for instance if you are coming from a counuy that officially sponsors terrorism, like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and the Sudan. Those are all legitimate profiling factors. We are not talking about profiling Ameri-cans, because we were not attacked by American citizens. We were attacked by peoplc who were not American citi7.cns. And giving a heightened awareness to people from other countries here I think is entirely appropriate.

After 9/11 we recognized that a passport with a signature and a photO, which was readilycounterfeitable using 1890 technology, is nOt a useful document anymore. Over time, we arc going to institute some of the highest tech sUiveiliance systems possible in airports: Magnetic imaging systems and what I'm mostexcitcd about, the retinal scan. It is going to be incredibly difiicult for a terrorist organization to cover up or mask that part of

ripon forum spring 2002

Documents