Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Tuesday, July 20, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled ``The Hidden Operators of Deceptive Mailings.''

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests & Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 729, the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water be granted permission to conduct a hearing Tuesday, July 20, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), on the science of habitat conservation plans.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: Improving Use of Funds'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I oppose this motion to discharge S.J. Res. 28 from the Finance Committee. I oppose this for both procedural and substantive reasons. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives must initiate all tax, trade, and revenue measures. The Senate has always deferred to the House to take first action on Jackson-Vanik waivers because they are tax-and-trade measures. On July 1, the House Ways and Means Committee voted out the House version of this resolution with a negative recommendation. The House will soon take up that resolution. I expect the full House to repeat its vote of last year and defeat that resolution. Last year, the House defeated 260 to 163 a resolution to disapprove the President's Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. If the House should pass either the China or Vietnam resolution, the Senate would then take up that resolution. The motions to discharge the Finance Committee of these two resolutions are inappropriate and premature. The comments made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, in my opinion, capture the essence of this issue. Vietnam is still an authoritarian government. Much progress yet needs to be made. But it is the opinion of many of us that the best way to encourage that progress and to lead that progress is to engage. That means open not just dialog, but opportunities. History has been rather clear that commerce is the one bridge, the one vehicle that has done the most over the hundreds and thousands of years of human history to accomplish these issues we still must deal with--human rights issues, immigration issues and, certainly, as the Senator from Massachusetts opened his speech, the MIA issue. There is not a Senator in this body, certainly none of us who served in Vietnam, who does not take that as a serious responsibility. I think this approach is a mistaken approach but well-intended. I salute my friend and colleague from New Hampshire for his efforts, but I believe it is taking us down the wrong path. I am proud to stand with Ambassador Pete Peterson and the other five Vietnam veterans in the Senate to support the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. The other Senate Vietnam veterans are: Senators McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Robb, and Cleland. Is Vietnam a Jeffersonian Democracy and a full market economy? Of course not. But Vietnam has made progress. We should nurture that progress, not turn back the clock. It is ironic that we would undermine our modest trade relationship with Vietnam at this time. Ambassador Barshefsky is in the final stages of negotiating a trade agreement that would substantially open Vietnam's market. We should support her efforts to open Vietnam's markets and promote economic reform. The Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam primarily benefits Americans, not Vietnamese. It allows the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to support American exports and jobs. This is not about normal trading relations or expanding access to the U.S. market. We not yet provide NTR status to Vietnam, although Vietnam provides NTR status to the United States. We can only have normal trading relations with Vietnam if we conclude an agreement that would increase U.S. access to the Vietnamese market. That would be the time to debate whether it serves our Nation's interest to have normal trade relations with Vietnam. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was all about trying to apply leverage on the Soviet Union in the 1970s to increase Jewish emigration. The Soviet Union no longer exists. But it was written into permanent law to affect all ``non-market economies,'' including Vietnam. Is Vietnam perfect? No, far from it. But look how far Vietnam has come and U.S.-Vietnam relations have come in five short years: Before 1994, the U.S. and Vietnam had no political or economic relations; In January 1994, John McCain and John Kerry offered an amendment calling for and end to the U.S. economic embargo on Vietnam; In February 1994, President Clinton followed the lead of the Senate and ended the U.S. trade embargo; In July 1995, the President granted diplomatic recognition to Vietnam; In April 1997, the Senate confirmed our first Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson; and In March 1998, the President waived the Jackson-Vanik law and permitted our trade promotion agencies to operate in Vietnam. This has always been the first step to full compliance with the law, the negotiation of a trade agreement, and the establishment of normal trading relations. The Senator from New Hampshire honestly believes that turning back the clock of the last five years is a better policy than engagement. I respect the Senator's views, but believe that his position is simply wrong. I will not engage in the debate on whether emigration from Vietnam is totally free. Vietnam itself is not totally free. Far from it. But there has been tremendous improvement. In fiscal year 1998, 9,742 Vietnamese were granted immigrant visas to the United States under the ``Orderly Departure Program.'' The State Department expects that number to rise to 25,000 this year and 30,000 next year. In the last 15 years, 500,000 Vietnamese have immigrated to the United States, and very few refugees remain to be processed. As a result of the first Jackson-Vanik waiver granted last year, Vietnam's cooperation on immigration matters has intensified. The State Department expects that processing will be completed for all special caseloads, including the Orderly Departure Program [ODP] and the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees [ROVR] programs. Again, we must consider how to encourage Vietnam to do even more to open up its society, its economy and its political system. Do we encourage openness through isolation? No, we spread American values through economic, cultural and political contact between our two peoples. I urge defeat of this motion, and I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I echo what my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said. It is not wise policy nor responsible governance for the greatest power on earth to hold captive one of the most important and responsible positions in this government, a position that has an effect and consequence to all of our allies as well as our adversaries. It is a constitutional mandate for this body to act with responsibility, aside from dispatch, and to move on this. I personally think holds are irresponsible. I understand the tradition of this body. I am new to this body, but I would go so far as to say, if you wish to hold someone, have the courage to take a stand on the floor of the Senate. Come before the American public and say why that hold is to be put on and why it is so important to hold captive such a critical position for this country, for our allies, for the representation of American values and standards across the world. To put in jeopardy our men and women in uniform who defend this Nation, as the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has so directly stated, is irresponsible. I support strongly what the senior Senator from Virginia is saying. This body should have the courage to bring this nomination up and vote straight up or down. Let every Member be recorded. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, there is no issue more important to the American people than ensuring quality health care for themselves and their families. We all agree on that. It is the great common denominator in our society. All of us in this debate, my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, want to help the people we serve. We want every citizen to have access to good, affordable health care. As a member of the Republican Health Care Task Force, I am very proud of the bill the Republicans have brought to the floor, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. I think it is important that we focus on the completeness of what this bill is about, what it would do. This bill would increase the quality of health care, the accessibility of health care, and the affordability of health care for millions of Americans. Our bill protects 48 million Americans whose health care plans are not now covered by existing State regulations. Specifically, it provides the following: Guaranteed access to emergency room care; health plans would be required to use the prudent layperson standard for providing in-network and out-of-network emergency care. No. 2, guaranteed access to the doctor of your choice. Under our bill, these health plans must provide point-of-service and continuity- of-care options that allow persons to see physicians outside of their health care network. No. 3, access to medication. Health plans would be required to provide access to noncovered drugs in cases where they are medically necessary and appropriate. No. 4, our plan provides access to specialists, and no gag clauses that restrict doctors from discussing treatment options with their patients. Health plans would be required to ensure that patients have access to covered specialty care within the network or, if necessary, through contractual arrangements with specialists outside the network. If the plan requires authorization by a primary care provider, then the plan must have a defined referral and authorization process. Moreover, under our bill providers are given the unfettered right to discuss all treatment options with their patients. No. 5, guaranteed access to an OB/GYN specialist. Health care plans would be required to allow direct access to obstetricians/gynecologists and pediatricians without the need for referral or the plan's prior authorization. No. 6, timely appeals by patients who believe they were improperly denied coverage. This is a key part of our bill. Our bill would allow timely review of a patient's claim by medical experts not affiliated with the plan. In emergencies, the review would be within 72 hours. The decision of the outside review panel would be binding. This way, a sick or hurting patient gets the matter resolved now, quickly, rather than languishing in court proceedings for years in a typical lawsuit. No. 7, it guarantees consumers access to plan information. Our bill requires all group health plans to provide consumer information about what is covered, what is not covered, how much they will have to pay in deductibles and in coinsurance, and how to appeal adverse coverage decisions. No. 8, it protects patients from being discriminated against on the basis of genetic information. This is a very big part of why our bill is better. The Democrats do not cover this. Our bill expressly prohibits all health care plans and health insurers from collecting or using predictive genetic information about a patient or their family to deny insurance coverage or set premiums. The Democrats' bill has no such prohibition. No. 9, changes in the Tax Code to make health care coverage more affordable and increase the number of people with health insurance. Isn't that what we are about--bringing more people on our health rolls; making quality, accessible health care affordable? If we want to help increase access to health care, one thing we could do is change the Tax Code. The self-employed ought to be able to deduct 100 percent of premiums for themselves and their families. Our Patients' Bill of Rights Plus does exactly this. Our bill would give all Americans the opportunity to open a medical savings account, an MSA, to save for their health care needs. Many Americans work for employers who do not now offer health insurance, and they must pay for it out of their own pockets. An MSA would be a tremendous benefit for these individuals and would greatly expand the number of individuals with coverage for their health care needs. According to the General Accounting Office, nearly one-third of the participants in the MSA pilot program authorized by Congress a couple of years ago had been uninsured before utilizing these tax-free accounts. It is also time to enact full tax deductibility for premiums that cover long-term care. The average annual cost of caring for a person in a nursing home is $50,000. Stories, of course, are legion of people exhausting their access and resorting to Medicaid to pay for nursing care. We address this issue in our bill. What does the Republican bill not do? There are several important things that the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights does not do. Let's start with liability. The Republican bill achieves the proper balance between legal rights and affordability. Our bill would preserve one of the most important rights patients already possess, and that is the right to file a class action injunction to get coverage. The class action is one of the strongest protections of patient rights under ERISA. You cannot sue your way to better health care. Let me say it again. You cannot sue your way to better health care. Rare are the patients who can afford a legal challenge against a big, well-financed insurance company. Mr. President, 22 States including Nebraska, my State, have already refused to expand liability and open up the opportunity for countless, endless lawsuits. The Democrat bill would make employers liable for medical malpractice. That is an incredible thing. Their bill would make the employer liable for medical malpractice. Patients could sue the employer. I cannot think of a more certain way to drive up both the cost of health insurance and the number of uninsured. Small businesses are especially vulnerable. One huge claim could wipe them out completely. It is no surprise that in a verified recent poll of small businesses across this country, 57 percent of small businesses said they would drop their health coverage rather than expose themselves to ruin under the provisions of the Democrat health proposal. The scope? Our bill does not unnecessarily duplicate State regulations, which adds more Federal Government mandates and increases costs. We do not need more Federal mandates. We do not need more Government mandates. We need more options for the patients and better health care. Our bill targets the 48 million Americans who have self- funded insurance policies. Democrats, including Vice President Gore in a recent CNN interview, and Senators, my friends on the other side of the aisle, have accused the Republican Senators of ignoring the roughly 100 million Americans insured in other ways. If the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights is so good, my friend Senator Kennedy asks, then why doesn't the GOP offer it to everybody? The answer is quite simple: Not everybody needs what we are offering. State laws and insurance regulations protect the rights of patients in all other plans but not necessarily in self-funded plans. We protect the people who need the protection. The Democrats duplicate the plans and protections already available under State laws. Cost: Our focus should be on providing access to quality, affordable health care for more Americans. We heard a lot on the floor in the last few days about quality and access, but we have heard very little about affordability, who can afford health care, especially from those on the other side of the aisle who want to talk about this. Pricing people out of health insurance systems is no way to improve access. The rate increases that would hit individuals would also hit employers. Dramatic hikes in health care costs cost employees their jobs, and what are we doing for America when we throw people out of work? Back when I had a real job--and I did have a real job once; I was a small business owner--I remember poring over numerous health insurance plans to determine which were the best, which could I afford for my employees. I have yet to meet a small business owner who does not want to give their employees health insurance. In conclusion, as I said at the outset of my remarks, there is no issue more important to more Americans than ensuring quality health care for themselves and their families, but in an effort to improve health care, it makes no sense to drive up costs and leave millions of Americans without health insurance. I look forward to the passage of the Republican bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, and as one of the architects, one of the Senators who helped write it, I am very proud of it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate greet the Honorable John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess for 5 minutes to greet the Honorable John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleague and friend, the distinguished junior Senator from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, in introducing the Fragile X Breakthrough Act of 1999. Although many of you may not have heard of Fragile X, it is the leading cause of inherited mental retardation. It affects tens of thousands of children in this country every year. Fragile X is caused by a defective gene that fails to product specific protein necessary for proper brain function. Those afflicted with this condition often suffer mild to severe mental retardation, anxiety, seizures, and a variety of learning disorders. Most children with Fragile X will require a lifetime of specialized care at a cost of over $2 million each. For those afflicted and their families--like John and Megan Massey from Scottsbluff, Nebraska, whose two sons Jack and Jacob suffer from this disease--it is a frustrating, life-crippling, and heart-wrenching condition. But there is hope. In 1991, medical researchers were able to identify the specific gene that fails to produce the necessary protein and is responsible for Fragile X. Since then, researchers have been able to develop a synthetic version of this protein, and are now working on a way to deliver it to the brain's flawed cells. Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to play a key role in solving the mystery of this disease, and encouraging the development of a treatment and eventual cure. The Fragile X Breakthrough Act is a practical, pro-active, and cost-effective vehicle by which Congress can accomplish these goals. The National Institute of Child and Human Development (NICHD) is required by law to establish research centers in order to conduct clinical and scientific research aimed at helping infants and children. In accordance with that charge, the Fragile X Breakthrough Act authorizes $10 million for the NICHD, to make grants or enter into contracts with public or private entities to develop and operate three Fragile X research centers. It also provides $2 million for a program that encourages physicians to conduct Fragile X research, by offering to repay a portion of their educational loans. These proposals closely follow the recommendations that emerged from an international scientific conference held by the NICHD and the Fragile X Foundation (FRAXA) in December of 1998. We are closing in on one of the principal genetic causes of mental retardation. Let's give the NICHD the authority and funding to accelerate Fragile X research, so that the final, critical breakthroughs can be made. Let's give these children the chance to lead normal, productive lives. If not for Jacob and Jack Massey, then for those children who will inevitably follow.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleague and friend, the distinguished junior Senator from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, in introducing the Fragile X Breakthrough Act of 1999. Although many of you may not have heard of Fragile X, it is the leading cause of inherited mental retardation. It affects tens of thousands of children in this country every year. Fragile X is caused by a defective gene that fails to product specific protein necessary for proper brain function. Those afflicted with this condition often suffer mild to severe mental retardation, anxiety, seizures, and a variety of learning disorders. Most children with Fragile X will require a lifetime of specialized care at a cost of over $2 million each. For those afflicted and their families--like John and Megan Massey from Scottsbluff, Nebraska, whose two sons Jack and Jacob suffer from this disease--it is a frustrating, life-crippling, and heart-wrenching condition. But there is hope. In 1991, medical researchers were able to identify the specific gene that fails to produce the necessary protein and is responsible for Fragile X. Since then, researchers have been able to develop a synthetic version of this protein, and are now working on a way to deliver it to the brain's flawed cells. Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to play a key role in solving the mystery of this disease, and encouraging the development of a treatment and eventual cure. The Fragile X Breakthrough Act is a practical, pro-active, and cost-effective vehicle by which Congress can accomplish these goals. The National Institute of Child and Human Development (NICHD) is required by law to establish research centers in order to conduct clinical and scientific research aimed at helping infants and children. In accordance with that charge, the Fragile X Breakthrough Act authorizes $10 million for the NICHD, to make grants or enter into contracts with public or private entities to develop and operate three Fragile X research centers. It also provides $2 million for a program that encourages physicians to conduct Fragile X research, by offering to repay a portion of their educational loans. These proposals closely follow the recommendations that emerged from an international scientific conference held by the NICHD and the Fragile X Foundation (FRAXA) in December of 1998. We are closing in on one of the principal genetic causes of mental retardation. Let's give the NICHD the authority and funding to accelerate Fragile X research, so that the final, critical breakthroughs can be made. Let's give these children the chance to lead normal, productive lives. If not for Jacob and Jack Massey, then for those children who will inevitably follow.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the McCain-Levin amendment. The arguments that have been made this morning and this afternoon, I believe, speak rather clearly and directly to why this amendment is worthy of our colleagues' support today. I also wish to express my strong support for S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense authorization bill being debated here on the floor of the Senate. The first responsibility of our Government is to provide for a strong national defense to protect America's security interests. The primary responsibility of elected officials is to provide the leadership and the wisdom to ensure it is used in the best interests of the American people. The percent of the gross domestic product we spend today on defense is lower than what it was just prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. At the end of the cold war, there was excited talk about the peace dividend that would come, of course, from the decline in East- West conflict as a result of the implosion of the Soviet Union and the reduction in defense spending that, of course, would logically follow. There was also talk about a new global order. Some suggested that war might be obsolete, thanks to the breakout of democracy around the globe. This all sounded hauntingly familiar to the end of World War I and other periods in the history of the world. But there is a peace dividend. That dividend is the new freedoms and opportunities that have resulted from the peace and stability America and her allies won over the last 50 years. If we step back for a moment and review Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, we understand in some rather direct terms what our stand and our allies' stand in those three areas of the world meant to stability, to commitment, to using our forces in a positive way that, in fact, stood for what was right in the world. I am a veteran of Vietnam. I served in Vietnam in 1968, and I have heard many times of the stories written and the debate about whether it was a wasted effort in Vietnam. I have responded this way: If America had not taken a stand in Vietnam, aside from how we executed and prosecuted the war--if we had not taken a stand in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, does anyone doubt that the face of Asia, the face of the Middle East would be different than it is today? Of course it would be. Would it be more in the interest of freedom and stability and democracy and market economies than it is today? I don't think so. So, you see, it is not only having the ability to protect our interests and preserve freedom and democracy, but the will and the leadership to make that commitment is just as important. There are new challenges and new responsibilities today that we face, as the new dynamic world always provides, as we move into the next millennium. During the cold war, we confronted one adversary on several fronts. Today, we confront several adversaries on several fronts. One of the concerns that we must be very vigilant about over the next few years is not placing America's interests in the world in a position to be blackmailed by nations who would threaten those interests by threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and for us, essentially, not only to be militarily incapable of responding to that blackmail and not having the leadership and the will to say we are not going to do that, that isn't going to happen. Actions have consequences. Inactions have consequences. America and her allies have done very well over the last 50 years to help stabilize a very unstable world. Partly, that has been the result of our word meaning something, our commitment meaning something. But if we don't have the military assets and the resources to be able to call upon that capacity to stop tyranny and war and instability, then in fact we place America in a terrible position and we threaten America's security through the possibility of blackmail. We must harbor our national defense resources wisely, of course. But when we do use them, we must follow the principles of the Powell doctrine: Overwhelming force deployed decisively in the pursuit of clear objectives. Rebuilding our military will not be cheap. America needs to understand that. This bill heads us in the right direction, but much more is going to be required. We must not and we cannot build our military based on budget caps or spending goals. Military spending must be based on the threats and challenges we face in the world today. We must protect our interests and help maintain global stability to ensure our long-term growth and prosperity. The defense budget must flow from our national security interests, not the other way around. The budget cannot drive our national security interests. Our national security interests must drive the budget. If we must find other means to take those resources and put them in our national security budget, then we must do that. That will require prioritizing our budget, our resources. It will prioritize what we as Americans believe our role in the world to be. Every year, the nondefense nondiscretionary budget grows. You have heard the numbers in the last 2 days around here. For the last 14 years, our defense budget has grown smaller. We have cut our defense budget over the last 14 years. Every year, these other needs crowd out other spending priorities. Nondiscretionary entitlement programs are important, but they do us little good if the military is cut back to the point that our interests are threatened around the world: oil supplies are cut off, sealanes are blocked, citizens and corporations abroad are threatened, and our economy declines. We must look for savings in the DOD budget, of course, push for greater reforms, seek greater efficiencies, and tailor our military for future challenges. But we also must be willing to spend as much as we need to protect our interests in this very uncertain, dangerous world. Having a strong, capable military is only half of the challenge. We must also have strong, capable political leadership. That leadership must have the respect of the world, so that the world knows that that leadership of ours can connect the military capability that we employ; knowing when and where to use our military. Strong leadership, anchored by clear principles, beliefs, vision, and policy, has always had its own deterrent power. Dictators fear strong leaders because they know strong leaders will act--despite public opinion polls, focus groups, short-term political gains, or leverage. Leaders understand that actions have consequences, and that inaction has consequences. Last week, King Abdullah from Jordan was here and spoke rather clearly and plainly to this issue regarding NATO's involvement in Kosovo. These are difficult times, but so have they always been. The real debate that will consume the American electorate next year, and the Presidential politics and this body next year, will be simply: What is America's role in the world? What leadership do we care to continue? We must recognize that if another country is to replace America as the world's leader, that new world leader may not be as benevolent as America has been in this century. I don't want that kind of a world to be inherited by my 6-year-old and 8-year-old. Richard Haas' new book, ``Reluctant Sheriff: The U.S. After the Cold War,'' lays it out clearly. That question about the role of America in the next century is a legitimate question. There should be a relevant debate, with the relevant questions asked: What burdens do we want to carry into the next century? Is it worth taking a disproportionate share of the world's burdens, which we have always had? I believe it is. Henry Kissinger's piece in this week's Newsweek magazine, ``New World Disorder,'' speaks to this issue. Unexpected events happen in the world daily. For example, last Sunday, a Chinese intelligence ship was sunk in the South China Sea. Supposedly, the Philippine Navy sunk it in an area that is contested. That is how fast flashpoints can bring world powers into conflict. We need to commit ourselves now to rebuilding the U.S. military, reasserting ourselves on the world stage, and accepting the burdens that come with leadership. Can we imagine Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan whining about the burdens of leadership, whining about, well, I don't know what the polls show or the focus groups show. Can we imagine those leaders governing and doing what they thought was in the best interest of our Nation and the world based on the political whims and winds of the time? I don't think so. America must continue to serve as the rock to which other democracies around the world can anchor. We must also continue to serve as the beacon of freedom and justice for other nations and other peoples. America has always inspired hope around the world, but we cannot lead the world without a strong national defense. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. This morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1059, the Department of Defense authorization bill. Amendments to the defense authorization bill are expected to be offered during today's session of the Senate. If votes are ordered with respect to S. 1059, those votes will be stacked to occur at 5:30 p.m. this evening. As always, Senators will be notified as votes are ordered. It is the intention of the leader to complete action on the defense authorization bill this week as well as the defense appropriations bill. Therefore, Senators can expect votes into the evening throughout the week. I thank my colleagues for their attention and cooperation. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask that the attached comments made by the Honorable Charles Thone at the memorial service for former Senator Roman Lee Hruska, be printed in the Record for Monday, April 26, 1999, immediately following my remarks entitled, ``Tribute to U.S. Senator Roman L. Hruska.'' The comments follow: Friends of Roman Lee Hruska Friends all: First, let me, and all of you here today, recognize two special people, Millie and Carl Curtis. Sen. Curtis served all 22 years with Roman, and Senator Hruska always acknowledged that no U.S. Senator ever had a more caring, a better and more cooperative colleague anywhere--anytime. Thank you, Senator Curtis. introductions It seems only fitting to also recognize all public officials present. It is from thence, that Roman sprung. He epitomized public service at its best. He lived it! He loved it! He honored it! He would have been pleased to know that, at the outset here, all Judges, current & past, all Federal, State and County officials, current and past, are asked to stand for a brief silent recognition. I also want to especially recognize Governor Mike Johanns; Former Governor Kay Orr and Bill; Former Governor Ben Nelson, Former Governor and U.S. Senator Jim Exon and Pat; former Congressman John Y. McCollister and Nan; Nebraska Supreme Court Chief Justice John Hendry; Congressman Doug Bereuter and Louise; and Congressman Lee Terry. Also, a special salute to former chair of the Lancaster County Board and the lifelong Douglas Theatre skilled business partner of Roman, Russell Brehm of Lincoln and his charming wife Louise Brehm. Also, Attorney General Don Stenberg, a former Hruska staff member. It was the British iconoclast, George B. Shaw who once wisely opined, ``No remarks from a former Governor are all that bad''--if they are short enough. Good stuff, but, in remembering Roman, I'm inclined to want to cover everything, filibuster a bit, if you please, and exhaust both your goodwill and patience, so I'll condense best I can! He was so special to me and many of you, too. his work ethic Roman's work was always his total recreation--Oh, occasionally he would superficially fish, hunt and in later years, cheer the mighty Cornhuskers on to victory! Early on, I must concede, he would have easily accepted the specious thought that ``a quarterback was a refund on the ticket.'' Many here will remember genial Dean Pohlenz, the Senator's long time and wonderful AA. He and I once seriously conspired against Roman and another very studious and important top aide to Roman, Bob Kutak. (Kutak and Harold Rock later organized Kutak-Rock, a very successful national law firm with which Roman proudly associated after leaving the Senate.) Kutak's interest and knowledge of sports made Roman look like the legendary Grantland Rice. So, Dean and I decided to reserve a table for four in the Senate Dining Room for Roman and Kutak, and then have two New York baseball stalwarts, Casey Stengel and Yogi Berra join them for lunch, ostensibly for Berra and Stengel to advise on finalizing a professional sports anti-trust bill. It didn't happen, but we figured that a recording of that awkward luncheon conversation would have gone down in history as a sports classic--of sorts. Just a few Hruska vignettes: debate comrades At Commerce High School, Roman was a star debater. His team should go down as a Hall of Famer. The team was Harry Cohen, a brilliant lawyer who was later President of the Nebraska Bar Association; Dick Robinson, another very successful lawyer, and a beloved Federal District Judge; Jerry Kutak, business tycoon, President of Guarantee Life of Hammond, Ind; and Roman. They stayed life-long friends and confidants and what a joy it was just to see the four together visiting and reminiscing. omaha roots Roman loved Omaha, and he effectively promoted his town throughout his career--he was the Senate architect of its Interstate System. S.A.C. and his friend, Curtis LeMay, were also tremendous beneficiaries of his Senate Appropriation skills. Chuck Durham, Ed Owen, Morrie Jacobs, Art Storz, Don Ross, John McCollister, Peter Kiewit, Cliff and Ann Batchelder were notables as his early Omaha Betterment Co- Conspirators. world-herald respect He always thought the Omaha World-Herald was easily the country's best newspaper and frequently checked in with then publisher, Walt Christensen and editor, Fred Ware--and, there was also a brilliant, hard working Statehouse and Douglas County Court House Reporter named Harold Andersen, whom he respected very much. World-Herald-wise, we wonder what ever happened to Harold. family love Family was most important to Roman. His wife and life-long partner, Victoria Kuncl Hruska was simply the best. A special wife and mother--and a political associate in a very effective low-key way--no flim-flam, no nonsense, just herself--beautiful Victoria. We last visited with able and vivacious daughter, Jana at the David City Library Dedication Ceremony. She has been suffering terribly with dreaded Lou Gehrig's disease. Her devoted husband, Charlie Fagan, is here from Maryland. Son Quentin came home several years ago and carefully cared so well for his parents. You met the ``Big Guy'', eldest son, Roman Jr., earlier on this program--his wife is the former MaryAnn Behlen of Columbus. Many grandchildren, nieces and nephews are also here today. Ultimately, family was first for Roman--as it is with all of us. the campaigner Roman was never happier nor better showcased than when he was on those early day political campaigns. Ruth and I were visiting the other day about a particular stump speech he once made--with a partially eaten kolache in his left hand-- on a Main Street corner at Schuyler during the Nebraska Republican caravan. It was indeed a powerful speech, spliced with Czech phrases and when he finished his remarks, the audience acknowledged him as if he were truly the ``second coming.'' The same result happened a couple of weeks later in a Hotel Ballroom in Broken Bow where the usually very reserved Sandhills crowd gave his at least a five minute standing ovation on his inspiring message and brilliant delivery. Oh, he could be a spell-binder deluxe, given the proper occasion. a near miss In the late 50's, a national search was on for a new leader of the Republican Party. The conservative kingmakers didn't publicize it, of course, but the short list came down to the two U.S. Senators with safe seats, Roman Hruska and Barry M. Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was ultimately designated somewhat on geography, but mostly because they determined that the TV cameras showcased Goldwater better. The rest, as they say, is history. he honored the law Most importantly, Roman Hruska's entire life revolved around the law. He lived by this creed once enunciated by Patrick Henry, ``Always honor the law because the law has honored you.'' Roman spent his first two law years studying at the University of Chicago Law School. Then he attended the Creighton Law School from which he graduated in 1929, just before the great depression hit with all its fury. He then, in the next 20 or so years, built up a substantial law practice, and from there was appointed to the Douglas County Board. He became its energetic, successful Chairman, known for his integrity and ability. He was always a prodigious worker. Even his political adversaries conceded that he achieved a lot the old fashioned way. He earned it. Then to Congress for most of one term, then 22 years in the U.S. Senate. In the Senate, he was Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen's right hand bower on the floor of the Senate. Dirksen--``The billion here, and a billion there guy''-- called Roman his floor lawyer. Often, on major legislation, Dirksen would tell his senate colleagues if they had amendments, objections, or whatever--``Clear it with Roman.'' Roman became a skilled practitioner of the ``art of the possible'' and he closed many legislative deals for Dirksen. extraordinary service It was as the ``Minority Leader'' of the Senate Judiciary Committee for almost 20 years, that Senator Hruska formally and extraordinarily honored the law. He worked awfully hard and most effectively, to not only give fairness but structure and design to the law so it would be more effective and easier to use by Federal Judges, the Federal Court System and lawyers. For the improvement of the rule of law, he co-sponsored the Criminal Code Reform Act of 1975 and the Criminal Justice Codification Revision and Reform Act of '73. For you lawyers here, this was a very substantial overhaul of the entire title 18 of the U.S. Code. His was the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. He, John McClelland, John Stennis, and Jim Eastland, Senior Democrat on the Committee, bonded and his working relationship with the Majority Party was always just something else, and highly unusual. For example, when he left the Senate, he had presided or co-presided over the confirmation hearings of all nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court--unprecedented in history--and that was an era of ``civility'' that seems to escape such modern day confirmation hearings. He was the principal architect of both the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. In 1972 and the years following, he served as Chairman of the Federal Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System of the U.S. and I could go on; suffice it to say that for several years, no Justice Department initiative, no Federal Judgeship, no major legislation moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee until it had received his careful scrutiny and approval. Throughout, he honored the law, and he honored the Senate as an Institution. Roman's fingerprints, literally, were all over everything processed by Judiciary during these years. roman was special Let me say in closing, that we are not here for Roman, we are here for us. We need this--he doesn't! Whatever comes to us after the moment of our earthly death is beyond our understanding. So, we remain here alive, confused and disconcerted. Above all, let's remember this about him: Grace was in his soul, a smile and kind word were on his lips and friendship was in his heart always. First, last, and always, he was a gentleman. These words are so true for Roman, and perhaps, just perhaps, they alone might be a fitting eulogy. And, as a very recent World-Herald editorial writer noted: ``The standards for integrity and service that Sen. Hruska set for himself, will long stand as his most fitting memorial''. A quick postscript paraphrasing beautiful Ecclasiastes, Chapter III, ``to everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven . . . A time to plant, and a time to harvest, a time to be born and a time to die.'' Roman, you had a long and superlative life, and we're all a little better because you cared and touched us. In Czech--Nas Dar--Good Bye--Dear Roman . . .

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I am happy to yield to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague from Utah for some additional time. I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the creation of the modern American Foreign Service. We have all traveled abroad. I have visited over 60 countries over the years. As many Americans, I have seen firsthand the dedication of professional Foreign Service officers in some of the most difficult and dangerous working environments in the world. There is no longer any clear division between domestic and international issues. Transportation, trade, telecommunications, technology, and the Internet have changed all that. As our Nation grew, it became more globally engaged. Over the last 200 years, year after year, America has become an international community. In 1860, we had only 33 diplomatic missions around the world. But we had 253 consular posts abroad, primarily involved in supporting our Nation's dramatic economic growth and trade expansion. As America's role in the world grew, we took on more responsibility. America's diplomacy needed to draw from the broad strength of our democratic society. And that, too, grew. The solution was the Rogers Act of 1924. This act created America's first professional competitive Foreign Service. It merged the small, elite diplomatic corps with the more broadly based consular services. The Rogers Act established a merit-based exam system to recruit the best our growing Nation had to offer without regard to family ties or political favors. America's diplomats are unsung heroes. Americans understand and appreciate the sacrifices of duty, honor, and country we ask every day from our military around the world. However, not enough Americans know about the sacrifices we also ask every day from our American Foreign Service officers around the world. Just like our military, they serve our national interests abroad in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. Our military's purpose is to fight and win wars. The purpose of our diplomats is to prevent wars. This makes recognition for their work more difficult. This is a little like listening for the dog that doesn't bark. But our Foreign Service officers do much more than prevent wars and resolve crises. They negotiate agreements to expand trade and open up foreign markets. They protect Americans abroad who find themselves in trouble and many more important responsibilities. They explain American policies to often hostile nations. They help negotiate arms control agreements to stem the dangerous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The work of the Foreign Service is relevant. It is very relevant to the daily lives of every American. Their many successes are often unheralded. We take them for granted. The Foreign Service has endured the same underfunding and poor working conditions as has our military services. In the last decade, the Foreign Service has experienced similar recruitment and retention problems, as has the military. Since 1992, the Foreign Service has declined 11 percent, even while we have asked the Foreign Service to open up new missions in Central Asia and Eastern Europe and increase staffing in China. This has led to sharp staff reductions elsewhere in the world. In my travels, as I am sure in your travels, Mr. President, and all of our colleagues' travels, we have also seen how run down and dangerous many of our embassies around the world have become. This has a real impact on our national interest. This is as dangerous as what we have been doing to our military. It is like asking the Air Force to permanently maintain an increased flight tempo with aging aircraft and a severe shortage of pilots. This all has serious consequences to our country. Few appreciate how dangerous it has become for our diplomats who defend America's interests the world. Since World War II, more ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty than generals and admirals. The Secretary of State has commemorated 186 American diplomats who have died under ``heroic or inspirational circumstances.'' Finally, in today's global community, we have a greater need for an active, energetic, and visionary foreign policy and those who carry out that foreign policy than ever before. Today, we all commemorate the 75th anniversary of the creation of the modern American Foreign Service, and we are stronger and better for it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, to my friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I offer my sympathy, my condolences. I have expressed those sentiments to Senator Helms in writing and face-to- face. I have heard the eloquence of many of my colleagues here this morning, expressing themselves about how they feel about a very special American. The only weakness that has been presented here is that most of them have been Navy. Having been an Army sergeant in Vietnam in 1968, I, too, have some sense of appreciation for a Navy admiral. Of course, when I was in Vietnam as an Army sergeant, I didn't know any admirals, but I got to know this admiral rather well. I wish to share a quick story that the Senator from North Carolina may not know about Bud Nance. Two weeks after I was elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996, I received a call from Admiral Nance. It had gotten around back here that I was interested in serving on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Admiral Nance first congratulated me on my victory and then said the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee would be willing to even take an Army veteran--if it came to that--but wanted me to know that he was at my disposal to help me and assist me in any way with the staff that I was assembling, whether I joined the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee or not. We had a long talk--as I recall about 45 minutes--about our country, about service to our country, military, foreign relations. After that 45-minute conversation, I walked out of my office in Omaha and said to the person who is now my chief of staff: I am going to seek a seat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee if for no other reason than Bud Nance. Bud Nance and I talked about that occasionally, and that relationship built. For me, it was a very important part of my service on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and in this body. I recall 4 months into my first year in the Senate at a hearing Senator Helms was presiding over--and I know this will come as a surprise to some Members on the floor--one of our colleagues had an awful lot to say that day and was not inhibited by time or bashful about how much he wished to contribute on this particular subject. As one of our colleagues went on and on and on, Admiral Nance leaned forward and said, ``Senator,'' and I turned and I said, ``Yes, Admiral Nance.'' He said, ``I want you to observe something.'' He smiled and winked and looked down and then said, ``Senator, remember, you need not be eternal to be immortal.'' I don't think that was an original, but it was at that time effective and framed the issue in rather simple Bud Nance eloquence that the Senator has come to know for so many years. Of course we will all miss him; not only for what he represented--and maybe, more than anything, what he represented was a role model. Each of us who has the privilege of serving our country should always understand that the greatest responsibility we have is to be as good a role model as we possibly can. For his staff, as you know so well, Mr. Chairman, you who loved this man, who adored this man--not because he was a friendly man, but he guided them and he helped them; he was tough when he needed to be tough--for all those staff members who served with Admiral Nance, I wish to say thank you on their behalf, since they do not have the privilege of being on the floor of the Senate this morning, acknowledging his service. And on behalf of this Army veteran, very junior Senator, I wish to thank Admiral Nance. For you, Bud Nance, wherever you are: We will miss you, Admiral. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in recognizing Senator Biden for his 10,000th vote in the United States Senate. I am proud to serve with Senator Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, where he is the ranking Democrat Member. Senator Biden has set many records in the Senate. I would like to squelch the rumor, however, that he sets a record every time he speaks. I am just in my third year as a United States Senator. Senator Biden is in his 27th year in the Senate. But in the time Senator Biden and I have served together on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have gained great respect for his wisdom and deep understanding of international issues. Senator Biden understands that there is no such thing as a Republican foreign policy or a Democrat foreign policy. There is only an American foreign policy. He has worked closely with Presidents in both parties. And he reaches out across the aisle to work as well with our Chairman, Senator Helms, as he does with his junior colleagues. Last year, Senator Biden was a leader in the historic expansion of NATO to include three former Warsaw Pact nations. This Congress he joined with Senator McCain in sponsoring a resolution authorizing the use of all necessary force to win the war in Kosovo. Through his leadership, Senator Biden displays the kind of courage that earns him respect from all of his colleagues, even when they disagree. I am proud to call Joe Biden my friend and colleague. America is proud to call him a United States Senator.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I am proud to have played a small role in writing this bill. America's financial services companies operate under a regulatory regime that dates back to the Great Depression. Our banks, insurance, and securities firms are bound by artificial barriers that do not recognize the current realities of the global marketplace. The reality is this: That the line separating these industries have been blurred by the evolution of new financial products and technology. Securities firms, insurance companies, and banks already affiliate with one another, because the marketplace demands it. However, these affiliations cannot lead to full and fair competition or the full potential benefits for consumers because of the Glass-Steagall Act and its legal barriers. Clearly, it is time for Congress to modernize U.S. financial service regulations and introduce full and open competition across the banking securities and insurance industries. S. 900 would accomplish that. Passage of this bill will benefit consumers in two basic ways: First, allowing competition among banks, securities firms, and insurance companies will lead to lower costs and higher savings for consumers. Second, this competition will strengthen our financial service firms that are integral to the health of the American economy. A 1995 Bureau of Economic Analysis report estimated that increased competition in the financial services industry would save consumers nearly $3 billion a year. I realize, Mr. President, that $3 billion may not seem to be a large figure around here, but in places such as Scottsbluff, NE, and other towns in my State that is real money. If we don't modernize our laws governing the delivery of financial services, then we will put our companies and our industries at a severe disadvantage in the global arena. Today, the United States is the world leader in financial services. We must not jeopardize this position through congressional inaction. Just as exports of manufactured goods and commodities have become increasingly important to the growth of our Nation's economy, so are our exports of financial services very important to our economy's growth. Our global position was strengthened by the conclusion of a historic financial services side agreement to the Uruguay Round of GATT. It is ironic that the United States pushed hard for this agreement to reduce barriers to competition abroad while our domestic market continues to operate under a 1930s regulatory regime. It is time to tear down barriers to competition in our domestic markets and ensure that our industries are able to continue to compete at home and abroad. The members of the Senate Banking Committee took a hard look at this important issue surrounding financial modernization. S. 900 balances the sense of urgency surrounding passage of financial services reform legislation with the need to ensure that the legislation responds to future marketplace dynamics and not just to today's realities and political pressures. Is this legislation perfect? No, it is not perfect. There are far too many competing and important interests involved in this legislation. And perfection means different things to different people. But this bill does achieve a very workable and relevant and realistic balance between the politics of financial modernization and sound public policy. Some of my colleagues have alleged that this bill is only going to help large financial institutions and will not help small banks. This is not true. S. 900 includes some very important changes, for example, to the Federal home loan bank system. These changes are very important to small banks everywhere across this country, not just in the rural States, such as my State of Nebraska, but in urban communities and large cities as well. The Federal home loan bank provisions in S. 900 will strengthen local community banks that are vital to the economic growth and viability of all communities. They will ensure that in an era of banking megamergers, smaller banks are able to compete effectively and continue to serve their customers' lending needs. These provisions are supported by all of the major banking trade organizations. There are many specific dynamics to improving the marketplace and the ability for the small institutions to compete. Many of my colleagues this afternoon have detailed those changes rather well. It is important, Mr. President, to modernize our financial service laws to ensure that our companies can compete in this new global marketplace. As barriers to trade come down, our financial service firms must be prepared to take advantage of new global opportunities. Congress can help them prepare by giving them the flexibility they so desperately need. S. 900 provides this flexibility. I urge my colleagues to support its speedy passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I wish to strongly endorse and support the McCain-Biden resolution. Mr. President, I'm an original cosponsor. I have listened this afternoon to my colleagues, who have all made significant contributions to this issue. There are many complicating currents coursing through this very complicated issue. There are no good answers. But surely one of the answers is not to not deal with this issue. We cannot escape our responsibility in this body to debate this issue. We should have had this debate weeks ago. There are very significant consequences attached to what we're doing. We've heard some of those stated directly and very well from our colleagues this afternoon. First, let's be clear on the making of war. It is not risk-free. It is not antiseptic. It is not without uncertainty. One not need read an awful lot of history to understand that. General Eisenhower's comments and what he wrote and put in his pocket hours before the D-Day invasion in case D-Day failed. And he wrote out in longhand a paragraph that said essentially, I take full responsibility for the failure. So you see, as we look back even 50 years ago, we understand that war is uncertain. But we also understand there are things worth going to war for, and there are things worth dying for. Questions raised today will be continued to be raised about national interests of our country: Should we be at war? All fair questions. Legitimate questions. But first we need to talk about it, debate it, and ask the serious questions. I've heard today, I've heard over the weeks all the reasons for failure, all the complications, all the problems. Yet I hear at the same time over here, well, we have to stop the slaughter and the ethnic cleansing. If we could just come together. But sometimes we just can't come together. Sometimes there is no more talk. When people are being slaughtered at a rather considerable rate, and genocide is occurring, and ethnic cleansing is occurring, and people are being driven from their homes and their countries at an unprecedented rate, and the other side that we're trying to deal with continues to lie and cheat and kill--then we must face reality. What do we do now? The geopolitical consequences, the humanitarian consequences involved in this are great. They are deep. And they are serious. I've heard some conversation today about this resolution taking the Congress out of play. This doesn't take the Congress out of play. The power of the purse still resides in the Congress of the United States. And no President surely would go forward unilaterally, arbitrarily, without confiding in, without reaching out to, without wanting the support of the Congress, and the American people. Why would you do that? And certainly not this President. I don't disagree with many of my colleagues, what they've said today--the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota,--about how this war initially was conducted. How irresponsible it was to take off the table certain of our military's abilities to wage this war. So what does that do? Well, I think it's rather obvious what it's done. It's allowed this tyrant, this butcher, Milosevic, to go completely unimpeded and slaughter people and drive people out of Kosovo--without any pressure on him other than withstanding the air war. And that's been antiseptic and that's been timid. So there's no question the conduct of this war from the beginning has been questionable. There will be much time to debate the miscalculations and the mistakes and the problems. But the fact is we are in the middle of this. Our actions will have consequences. There are other Milosevics out there. If the word of this Nation, if the word of America--the most powerful nation on Earth, the most powerful nation for good--cannot be trusted, and NATO--the most effective peacekeeping organization in the history of man--if the word of that organization cannot be trusted, then what kind of a world are we going to be dealing with as we now move into this dangerous new century? We should think through this very carefully. All the problems that surround this. We are forcing the President to lead. That's what this resolution's about. This resolution is not about abdicating our responsibility in the Congress. Although some I suspect wish it be the case. We're asking the United States Senate to take a stand. What does this country come to--to ask a United States Senator to stand up and take some responsibility for the Nation being at war? This resolution is about getting the Congress involved in it. This resolution is about forcing the President to take some leadership and responsibility. Now, we're not going to pass this resolution. Senator McCain and I and others know the reality of that. But if we can make it a little uncomfortable for some people around here to have to deal with an uncomfortable issue, then that's worth it. I've never asked one of my colleagues to support this resolution, nor has Senator McCain, nor has Senator Biden, or any of the other cosponsors. But we have asked them to take a look and debate it, and take a position and take a stand. There are consequences to our actions, and there are consequences to our inactions. If we do not see this through the right way, we will leave the world more dangerous than it is today. I happen to believe that the Balkans are in the national security interest of this country for many reasons, aside from the humanitarian dynamics of this. Do we really believe that the greatest, most noble, most free nation on earth can stand aside and watch this butchering and act like it's not there? History has surely taught us that when you defer the tough decisions, when you let the butchers continue and the tyrants and dictators continue, it gets worse. And it has gotten worse with Milosevic. For ten years we've dealt with him. Four wars he's started. He's lied and cheated and slaughtered all through those ten years. Don't we have some responsibility to deal with this, as imperfect as all the options are? Again I go back to my first point. As my friend, the sponsor of this resolution, John McCain, said earlier--and said it very well--we must understand something very clearly. Whatever you think of this President, this President is out of office in a year and a half. But the Presidency remains. The vitalness of this Presidency, this Executive branch that a new leader will inherit, must remain strong and must be able to deal with an international crisis. So we must be very careful not to take advantage of this weakened President. And if that would ever happen--ladies and gentlemen, the world will not be safer and it will not be better. When you weaken the United States of America, you weaken all of freedom everywhere. So it is, Mr. President, for those reasons that I will support this resolution. I think it is in the best interest of our country, and I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. today. Following morning business, the Senate will immediately begin consideration of the McCain resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 20, pursuant to provisions of the War Powers Act. A rollcall vote on or in relation to Senate Joint Resolution 20 concerning the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to the Kosovo region in Yugoslavia is expected to take place at 5:30 p.m. today. For the information of all Senators, consideration of the financial modernization bill is expected to begin on Tuesday and hopefully conclude on Thursday evening. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.