Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak on the Middle East. I begin my comments this morning with a statement of support for Senator Daschle's comments yesterday concerning his call for restraint by our colleagues while Secretary of State Powell is in the Middle East. Senator Daschle's statement was wise. It is important we all listen carefully to what Senator Daschle said. And, more importantly, in my opinion, it is important that we follow his suggestion. President Bush was correct in his assessment that he presented to the American public and the world last Thursday in his speech when he informed the world he was going to be engaged in the Middle East by sending Secretary Powell to the Middle East. It was a correct decision. Secretary Powell is now engaged in a very difficult, dangerous, and delicate mission. Yes, there are great risks for the President's prestige, our Nation's risk to that prestige, and to America's prestige. There are risks all around. We must not misunderstand the reality of with what we are dealing. We are not dealing with some abstraction or some theory. We are dealing with the cold, brutal reality of what is taking place in the Middle East. There are no good options. There are no risk-free options for America, for Israel, for the Palestinians, for the Arab world, and for, indeed, the entire world. There are far greater risks if the United States of America does not engage and provide leadership where there has been a vacuum of leadership, which, in my opinion, has produced much of this danger, chaos, and turmoil, and which I believe borders on the brink of a raging inferno if this is not brought under control. We have no option but to lead. Terrorists win if we don't engage--if we allow ourselves to be held captive to terrorist actions. As we follow this through, do we believe things will get better? Things won't get better. Things will get worse and more dangerous and will draw more and more of the world into this conflict. So we have no option. The President is right. If this situation continues to spiral out of control, it serves no one's interest or purpose except the fringes, the radicals, and the terrorists. It is not in Israel's interest, nor the Palestinians' interest, nor the world's interest to allow this problem to continue. Of course, our hearts go out to the Israeli people today, and to the victims and families of the latest terrorist bombing in Jerusalem. We can never justify nor condone acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, I am not surprised that on the day Secretary Powell is in Israel meeting with leaders to attempt to bring some sanity to this situation that the terrorists have struck. That is what they always do. They try to drive us back. They try to fragment us. They try to get us to argue amongst ourselves as to strategy and policy. But we must not fall prey to terrorist actions and allow ourselves to become paralyzed by what they are doing. No Nation and no people should have to live under the conditions the Israelis are presently living under and the Palestinian people are enduring. That is why Secretary Powell is there. Let us not forget why he is there. Let us cut through the fog. He is there to try to bring some stability and peace and pull apart the warring factions so that we can get on with a settlement, get on with lives, and hopefully on into a future for all peoples of that region. That is why he is there. President Bush has been very clear in his condemnation of terrorism and his unprecedented commitment to ending it. We understand Israel's right to defend itself. We are committed to that right. We have helped Israel defend that right. We will continue to do so. But it should not be at the expense of the Palestinian people--innocent Palestinian people and innocent Israelis who are paying a high price. Both Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a war not of their making. We must step back from this great tragedy and recognize one constant: That the more the violence escalates, the more the terrorists win, and that further violence will embolden the terrorist bombers in Israel and elsewhere, and it will spread and spread. We cannot allow a vacuum of leadership to develop in the Middle East. That, too, is why Secretary Powell is there. Secretary Powell is on a critical mission to help end this cycle of violence and eventually help both sides see a future where there can be peace. Look over the horizon. Is it imperfect? Absolutely. Is it full of problems and holes and gaps, imperfections and flaws? Absolutely. But if we do not anchor ourselves to some hope, some plan, some leadership--all, yes, full of risk--then what is there, what will there be? We must be reminded that this cannot, and will not, be accomplished in one trip. This will take time. We must have patience. We must stay focused, disciplined, and prepared for setbacks. And there will be setbacks. But allowing this to spiral out of control is not an option. The military solution alone is not an option. That is part of it. We will get to a time--I have confidence we will--where we will be asking, How do we guarantee this peace? Will America be called upon, NATO forces be called upon to help guarantee this peace? Maybe. But we should now put all our creative, new, wider-lens thinking on this issue, and all our foreign policy in this new world in which we live, on the table. It will require some new thinking. Who guarantees this peace? If, in fact, we expect Israel to pull back to their pre-1967 borders, who guarantees that peace? Those will be difficult decisions for this body to be part of making, as well as the President having to make those difficult decisions. I do not tremble with any fear or quake with fear that we are not up to that. We will get to that. We must be prepared to think through that--and long term. The Secretary's mission is all about the war on terrorism. Let's not get disconnected to the broader purpose. Its purpose is to end the violence and terror. The Middle East is connected to our policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are paralyzed now in some of these areas because we are totally consumed with the Middle East, and appropriately so. We have few options anywhere until this Middle East issue is on some track of resolution. The situation in Afghanistan, as the Presiding Officer knows, is still very fragile and very dangerous. There is a long way to go. We must not allow Afghanistan to unwind. The investment, the progress, the good, the justice, the dignity--all that has been brought to that land as a result of American leadership, which we must preserve--we cannot allow to erode and for us to go back to a time when we were losing there. Deadly terrorism stalks the world. It is the great challenge of our time. It is the reality of our time. We need the help of all our allies, all our friends all over the world, all the Moslem nations, to continue to root out terrorism and stabilize and secure the world. This is not an American interest alone. And we cannot do it alone. We are the greatest power the world has ever known. We stand astride the globe as no power in the history of man. But we have limits, too. These coalitions for peace, coalitions for change, will be our future, the world's future. And we must lead that coalition. We cannot press forward on a regime change in Iraq with the fires burning in Israel or we will stand alone, without our allies. We will risk finding ourselves isolated, Israel isolated. It is not in the interest of Israel to find America and Israel isolated in the world. America's and the world's vital interests are connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--completely, directly, daily. We must give Secretary Powell and the President the time to work through these unprecedented challenges, this unprecedented violence and danger. They need the latitude, the flexibility to work through to a solution, in consultation with the Congress, of course. In this body and in the House of Representatives reside great expertise, ability, common sense, and wisdom on which the President will and is calling. We need an Arab coalition for peace, building upon the Saudi initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah, incorporating the Tenet plan and the Mitchell plan. We need to support the President's policies to help bring to this region peace which has worldwide consequences. All of the world will be affected by the outcome. There are consequences playing out today, and they will continue to play out, and they are uncontrollable consequences. In conclusion, I offer a comment that Henry Kissinger made in a statement recently on U.S. policy in the post-cold-war world reality. Dr. Kissinger said this: ``history . . . will not excuse failure by the magnitude of the task.'' It applies very appropriately, clearly, and with deadly accuracy today in the Middle East. The President has shown his courage and the determination that a nation as great and worthy as America is--and can be, and has been--to go forward with the kind of leadership the world expects from us, and, yes, at great risk. But that risk is for peace, and that risk is worth taking. It will be long and difficult, but it can be done. We are dealing with a manmade problem. We will find a manmade resolution. So I return to the opening of my comments this morning in once again suggesting that Senator Daschle had it right yesterday in calling for all of us on Capitol Hill to work together to support the President, to find solutions and resolutions. Criticism is easy. It is very easy to criticize. But we do not have an option to criticize. We have a responsibility to find a solution. And we will. We must support our President and Secretary Powell in his mission for peace. Mr. President, I thank you for your attention. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 15 minutes to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, in the wake of September 11, America and the rest of the free world now face dramatic new challenges as certainly evidenced by our Secretary of State being in the Middle East today. There are serious consequences to these great challenges. Energy independence is one of these challenges. Today, less than 1 percent of America's transportation fuel comes from renewable sources. In the energy bill we are debating today renewable fuel would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply by 2012. A few weeks ago, the Senate approved the renewable portfolio standard for electricity which mandates that 10 percent of all electricity must come from certain renewable sources. I note that my colleagues from California and New York in particular voted in favor of that renewable electricity mandate which the Department of Energy has estimated will cost the ratepayers of America about $88 billion through 2020. I note also that my colleagues from California and New York voted for a 20-percent renewable electricity standard. Yet, as I heard this morning, they oppose a 3-percent renewable fuel standard. What is the difference between the renewable fuel standard and the renewable electricity standard? Here is the difference. Today, we spend about $300 million per day on foreign oil imports. We are nearing 60 percent of the total use of our oil coming from other nations. We spend $12 million a day on Iraqi oil alone--we used to. We did until Saddam Hussein announced this week that Iraq would halt its exports of oil for a month. With Iraq capping its production, Venezuela imploding, and other producers such as Iran, Libya, and Nigeria sending very troubling signals to the world, America must develop an accountable, responsible, relevant, and workable energy policy that will replace the oil we now import with alternative fuels and renewable fuels produced here in the United States. Despite the regional differences that sometimes arise, this renewable fuel standard is good for all America. That has been highlighted by the fact that this standard has broad bipartisan support in the Congress. It has been endorsed by a majority of Governors, Democrat and Republican; the Bush administration; agricultural and environmental groups; and the oil and gas industry. Consider that this standard would replace 66 billion gallons--1.6 billion barrels--of foreign crude oil by 2012. It would reduce the U.S. trade deficit by as much as $34 billion. The renewable fuel standard in the energy bill we debate today would also bring a needed boost to our economy. This single provision would create 214,000 jobs nationwide--not in the Midwest but nationwide. It would create $5.3 billion in new investment nationwide. It would increase household income by $52 billion nationwide. It would increase net farm income by $6.6 billion a year, reducing the amount spent on the farm price support program that we are now debating in a conference committee, trying to resolve the differences between the House and Senate agriculture bills. Unfortunately, since this landmark agreement was announced, the opponents of renewable fuels have distorted facts and tried to undermine our bipartisan compromise. My colleagues from California and New York stated this morning that the renewable fuel standard would result in substantially higher prices at the gas pump. However, they fail to mention that the report by the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy stated that over 90 percent of any increased costs would come from the phaseout of MTBE. They also failed to note that the recent reports by the Energy Information Administration and the GAO did not take into account the important fact that 13 States have already banned the use of MTBE. The fact is, any increased cost at the pump would be very minimal at most-- perhaps a half cent a gallon--if there is an increased cost. This standard does not require a single gallon of renewable fuel be used in any particular State or region. The additional flexibility provided by the credit trading provisions will result in much lower cost to refiners, and thus, to consumers. Renewable fuels will be used where they are most cost effective. Others claim since renewable fuels are largely produced in the Midwest, this standard will require substantial investments in increased transportation costs. Again, not true. Ethanol has already transported cost effectively from coast to coast via barge and railcar. An analysis completed in January by the Department of Energy concluded that no major infrastructure barriers exist to expanding the U.S. ethanol industry to 5.1 billion gallons per year, which is comparable to the renewable fuel standard in the energy bill. I also would like to point out that it is 7,666 miles direct from Baghdad to Los Angeles. It is 1,150 miles from Hastings, NE--home of two ethanol plants--to Los Angeles. If we can transport oil that we pay Saddam Hussein for from Iraq to the United States, we can surely transport ethanol across the United States cost effectively and certainly in the best security interests of our country. Some have claimed there are not adequate supplies of renewable fuel to meet the demand created by this standard. That is not true. One look at the ethanol industry shows that it has been growing substantially in recent years. It has been growing in anticipation of the phaseout of MTBE--particularly in California. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 16 new ethanol plants-- 14 of them farmer-owned cooperatives, not big companies, which I heard this morning as well, not big companies, but individuals, small farmers banding together, small businesspeople banding together to build cooperatives--several of these expansions have been completed and new ones are being built. Thirteen additional plants are now currently under construction. A survey conducted by the California Energy Commission concluded that the ethanol industry will have the capacity to produce 3.5 billion gallons a year by the end of 2004, and that capacity could double by the end of 2005. With the standard beginning in 2004 at 2.3 billion gallons, that means there will be an adequate amount of renewable fuel to provide the additional volume needed. Even with those assurances, we have included in this amendment additional safeguards. If the standard is likely to result in significant adverse consumer impacts, then the EPA Administrator has the authority to reduce the volumes. Also, upon the petition of a State--any State--or by EPA's own determination, the EPA may waive the standard, in whole or in part, if it determines the standard would severely harm the economy or the environment of a State, a region, or the country. Even more ludicrous is this claim by some who say the phaseout of MTBE will result in a shortage of fuel supplies. That is not true. Remember this agreement calls for a 4-year phaseout of MTBE. The large expansion of the renewable fuel industry will easily cover the loss of MTBE, given this 4-year notice. As an example, in California, where polls show that more than 76 percent of the people of California support a ban on MTBE, the fuel industry is ready to make the transition from MTBE to renewable fuel. Why in the world do we think the oil companies agreed to this standard if they thought it could not be met? All six California refiners are ready to use ethanol now, today. Both the ethanol industry and the California refining and transportation system have spent billions of dollars preparing to use ethanol. I also keep hearing references to ethanol as an untested fuel. Ethanol has been used across this country successfully for more than 20 years. It is hardly untested. But I also note that the California Environmental Protection Agency completed a comprehensive analysis of ethanol's environmental and health impacts, giving it a clean bill of health, before approving ethanol for use as a replacement to MTBE. Ethanol has helped the Chicago area become the only ozone nonattainment area in the country to come into compliance with the national ozone standard. Ethanol has been tested, and it has passed. And one of the reasons that Chicago has found itself in that unique position is because of its use of ethanol. President Bush has proclaimed the promise of renewable fuels by saying recently: Renewable fuels are gentle on the environment, and they are made in America so they cannot be threatened by any foreign power. As former President Clinton said during his administration: Ethanol production increases farm income, decreases deficiency payments, creates jobs in America, and reduces American reliance on foreign oil. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush are absolutely right. This renewable fuel standard is good for all of America. I, again, ask my colleagues to support the renewable fuels agreement in the Senate energy bill that we debate today. I do oppose any amendments that would undermine this carefully crafted agreement. In conclusion, before I yield the floor, I wish to respond to a comment I heard this morning from one of my colleagues from New York. I believe he mentioned something to the effect that an ethanol bill in Nebraska failed. I am not sure what his point was. But, for the record, and for the edification of all who heard that, and especially my colleague, last year the Nebraska Legislature tried to mandate that every gas station--every gas pump--in the State sell an ethanol blend. Now, that is a bit different--completely different--if that was the parallel attempted to be drawn from this standard, this bipartisan standard that we have agreed to that is currently in the present energy bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Feinstein amendment for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a very thoughtful speech by my colleague, Mr. Biden, on U.S. policy toward Iran, which he delivered before the American-Iranian Council on March 13, 2002. Mr. Biden offers a realistic assessment of the challenges of dealing with a divided government in Iran, where an unelected, ``hardcore clique'' holds the key levers of power and thwarts the democratic will of the vast majority of Iranians. More significantly, he lists five specific steps that the United States can take to increase Iran's international linkages and reach out to those in Iran who take risks to bring about change and reform. Mr. Biden's speech has touched off a spirited debate in Iran about how to respond to his initiative. Like my colleague from Delaware, I do not believe that our many differences with the Islamic Republic of Iran should close off opportunities to influence Iranian behavior and work together constructively when we may share common interests, such as in Afghanistan; assisting with and re-locating refugees displaced by the Afghan war; controlling the international narcotics trade; and, perhaps, regarding the future of Iraq. Our policies must also assist those in Iran advocating reform and change in the Iranian government. Supporting Iranian admittance to the World Trade Organization, for example, would strengthen the hands of reformers in the Iranian parliament and elsewhere who seek to undertake the structural economic reforms that, over time, could lead to more open political and economic systems for the Iranian people. I strongly support Mr. Biden's recommendations, including his invitation to meet with members of the Iranian parliament. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to read Mr. Biden's speech when considering next steps in U.S. policy toward Iran. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden's speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Girl Scouts of America on their 90th Anniversary. Since Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in 1912, this organization has provided young girls with the leadership skills to make a difference in their communities and our world. Girl Scouts teach self-confidence, responsibility and integrity at a young age and these core values stay with girls throughout their lives. Today, more than 3.7 million girls in over 233,000 troops are learning new skills, developing talents and building friendships across geographic, ethnic and socioeconomic lines. Through scouting, Girl Scouts participate in community service projects, cultural exchanges, athletic events and educational activities. None of this would be possible without the generosity and commitment of parents and community members who donate their time to help shape the lives of young girls through the Girl Scouts. In Nebraska, I represent more than 20,000 Girl Scouts, I am also a proud Girl Scout parent. I congratulate and thank the Girl Scouts on their 90th year.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I ask that I be given 10 minutes of time from the Republican side.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. I first acknowledge the statements of my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson. He has been a leader on renewable fuels for many years--long before he came to the Senate, when he served our State of Nebraska ably as its Governor for 8 years, and for his leadership over those years. He brings that leadership and experience to this body in regard to not only this issue but many others. I rise in support of the renewable fuels standard included in the underlying bill. This legislation is important if we are to increase the market share for renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, and biogas from landfills and feedlots. I, too, wish to recognize and thank other colleagues who have been very important to this debate over many years, especially Senators Grassley, Lugar, Daschle, Bond, and in particular, as Senator Nelson has stated, Senator Johnson, who has been a strong leader both during his tenure in the House and here in the Senate, and, of course, again, my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson. Also, those groups that represent many of the important interests of this country that were very involved in bolting together a compromise for this section of the energy bill, as Senator Durbin pointed out, should be recognized and thanked for their participation and their support in helping to develop this section of the bill. During a recent stop to the Midwest, President Bush proclaimed the promise of renewable fuels, saying, Renewable fuels are gentle on the environment, and they are made in America so they cannot be threatened by any foreign power. Ethanol and biofuels are fuels of the future for this country. The President is right. Renewable fuels afford us the opportunity to develop energy, environmental and economic policies that work together. A renewable fuel standard would enhance our environment, strengthen national security, reduce our trade deficit, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Today, less than 1 percent of America's transportation fuel comes from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply. This would more than triple the amount of renewable fuel we now use. Today, America imports nearly 60 percent of the crude oil it consumes--estimated to climb as high as 70 percent by 2020. Senator Nelson displayed a chart which I think very clearly indicates the danger this presents to our foreign policy, to our interests, and to our geopolitical and strategic trade interests around the world, which now are, as we know, interconnected. Almost a fourth of these imports come from the Persian Gulf, where Iraq currently sells the United States between 600,000 and 1 million barrels of oil a day. This renewable fuel standard is a fair and workable compromise based on months of work with the petroleum industry, the environmental community, DOE, USDA, and EPA. This is flexible legislation--not a gallon-by-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult. To guard against possible fuel shortages, it permits the EPA Administrator, in consultation with USDA and the Department of Energy, to adjust the renewable fuel requirement. To make this legislation even more flexible, refiners, blenders, and importers will have access to a credit trading program--so those who use more renewable fuel can sell credits to other refiners, blenders, and importers who fall short on meeting their requirements. Producers will not be penalized if there are insufficient supplies of renewable fuel. Finally, small refiners will be exempt from their requirements established by this program. In the wake of September 11, America and the rest of the free world face dramatic new challenges. Energy independence is one of the most serious of these challenges. Our Nation needs a broader, deeper, and more diverse energy portfolio--one that ensures we have clean, reliable, and affordable domestic sources of energy. Expanding the market for renewable fuels is a modest, but significant part of the solution. To enhance national energy security and improve environmental quality, we need a reasonable renewable fuel standard. As President Bush said, ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels are the fuels of the future for this country. I ask my colleagues to support the renewable fuel standard in this energy bill to make renewable fuels an important component of a new national energy plan which is so vitally important to the future of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 90th anniversary of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America. With over 300,000 members and 1,500 chapters across the country, Hadassah is the largest Jewish women's membership organization in the United States. Hadassah's mission is to promote a prosperous and peaceful Israel, ensure Jewish continuity, pursue social justice, and provide for the health, education, and well-being of American Jewish women and their families. I would also add that Hadassah plays a central role in reinforcing the close and intimate bonds of friendship, solidarity, and shared values between the United States and Israel. Hadassah was founded in 1912 by educator and visionary Henrietta Szold, who had long been committed to the ideal of a Jewish homeland and the Jewish imperative for social justice. After her first visit to Palestine, Szold transformed her small women's study circle into a dynamic social action committee dedicated to meet the challenges of poverty, filth, and disease in Palestine. In 1913, two American nurses set up community health and maternity care stations in Jerusalem. These health centers became the foundation of Israel's medical infrastructure. Today in Israel, Hadassah supports the most advanced medical center in the region, comprised of two hospitals, 90 outpatient clinics, and numerous community health centers. Hadassah Medical Organization, HMO, its flagship project, provides state-of-the-art health care to 600,000 patients a year regardless of race, religion, or creed, and often treats the most critically wounded in the region's ongoing conflicts. Through the Congressionally-funded American Schools and Hospital Abroad, ASHA, program, HMO stands ready to serve American military troops should such a need ever arise. HMO sites have been visited by numerous heads of state, American Congressional delegations and administration officials, state and local leaders, and other public opinion makers. In addition to Hadassah Medical Organization, Hadassah funds and maintains four other major programs in Israel and the United States: Hadassah Israel Education Services, which provides cutting-edge technical training, retraining, and vocational guidance for all Israeli citizens; Youth Aliya founded to bring children of the Holocaust to Palestine, now provides housing, education, and support to disadvantaged Israeli and immigrant youth; Young Judaea, which includes clubs, camps, and programs for American teenagers to build connections to Israel and Jewish life; and The Jewish National Fund, which supports the building of parks, plants and trees, and other initiatives to preserve Israel's ecology and natural resources. As part of its global humanitarian commitment, Hadassah provides medical personnel and training and relief services during international health crises, including those in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda. Throughout the United States, Hadassah members are engaged in a wide range of educational, advocacy, and community service initiatives. Hadassah's education services include women's health seminars and Hebrew language classes. Hadassah members also help to shape public opinion and policy through advocacy work on issues ranging from United States-Israel relations to first amendment protections to women's rights and health concerns. In communities across the United States, Hadassah members have also launched many projects aimed at improving the lives of women and their families. Hadassah's members are represented in every Congressional district in the United States. Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions that Hadassah has made to the promotion of humanity, compassion, and community, in Israel, the United States, and worldwide.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my friend and distinguished colleague from North Dakota to speak about the New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act, S. 1860. We have heard Senator Dorgan speak of this act, the reasons and possibilities for changes in our lifestyle in our country, and in particular how it has affected the part of America from which Senator Dorgan and I come. But it is not just a heartland issue. This issue of outmigration has received little attention over the years. North Dakota and Nebraska and other Midwestern States, as you saw from Senator Dorgan's map, have been more affected by this outmigration than most other States. Senator Dorgan talked with me last year about possibilities to not only address the issue but to go beyond just bringing up solutions and go beyond in an area where we think there are expansion opportunities for many people. Many communities in rural America have not shared in much of the boom that has brought great prosperity to America over the last few years. As we look at the numbers, at least over the last 50 years, we see clearly that the nonmetropolitan counties in the Nation lost more than a third of their population during this time. You contrast this with the fact that during the same period the number of people living in metropolitan areas grew by more than 150 percent. It is not our intention to restructure, reframe, or in any way try to dominate lifestyles and have a disproportionate effect on where people live and how they live. That is not the point. The point is to offer some incentives that might, in fact, give people more possibilities and more opportunities at a time in the history of our country where quality of life is as important as some of the other dynamics that we, as a nation, as a culture, as a society, have had to deal with over the years: Jobs, how to raise your family, how to take care of that family, education, health care. So quality of life has become an issue, as it should. We are most blessed in this country that it is an issue. We have conquered most of the great diseases. We have conquered poverty and hunger, not in the world but certainly in this country. So we are now looking at other possibilities as we try to help make the world more just and do more for more people than history has ever recorded one nation having been able to do. So my colleague from North Dakota and I are exploring possibilities. He noted the 1862 Homestead Act, which I think is somewhat analogous to what we are proposing. In fact, the first claim made under this act in 1862 was just outside Beatrice, NE. That first homestead under the 1862 Homestead Act is still there. It is a national park. We are very proud of that. But, as I said earlier, as much as we have benefited--the State of Nebraska, the Midwest; and we have benefited mightily from the Homestead Act of 1862--of the 93 counties in Nebraska, 61 of those 93 had net outmigration of at least 10 percent over the last 20 years. There is no particular mystery as to why we have seen this outmigration. Again, referring to Senator Dorgan's map, which gives a very accurate assessment of what has happened, people will go where there are opportunities. Jobs are a part of that universe of opportunities. So as Senator Dorgan pointed out, in our legislation that we are proposing, we set out some specific areas that we think people might have an interest in exploring to incentivize their interest in not only the Midwest but all rural areas of America. And they are attached to what is important in our lives: Our families, our friends, our faiths, our sense of voluntarism, and community participation. It is being part of something larger than one's self-interest, a community spirit that in many ways is unique to America. So we would like to, in some way, offer opportunities to renew some of that. There are currently joint capital formation projects, joint ventures, used in some States--Nebraska happens to have one of them--where, in fact, we can call upon the resources of both the public and private sectors to come together and provide those incentives. That is what we are proposing we do today in startup capital joint ventures, using private and public facilities. Senator Dorgan addressed some of those issues. Infrastructure in these communities is critical, infrastructure such as roads and water and schools and medical facilities, hospitals, and something that Senator Dorgan has spoken of often, the Internet, access to high-speed Internet that many times we in the Midwest and many rural areas in the country get forgotten. If we can, in fact, continue to build around and develop those infrastructures, people who want a different approach, who want maybe a style of life that isn't always found or conducive in large metropolitan areas, would have an option. I think it is worth exploring. I am proud to be part of what Senator Dorgan and I are doing. We would hope others will have some interest as well. One last point on this. Later this month, the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper in Nebraska will partner with the Nebraska Educational TV Network to explore issues surrounding outmigration. In fact, the Lincoln Journal Star has done a series of articles which have been very insightful and informative on how we can deal with some of the concepts that Senator Dorgan and I are proposing in this legislation. This presentation that will be made on educational TV will help frame the problems, solutions, and issues. When that report is completed and that program is aired, I will have that printed in the Record because I think it very much focuses on and frames up, in a relevant way, what we are attempting to do with this legislation. With that, Mr. President, again, I appreciate the time and I appreciate Senator Dorgan and his staff's effort on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa. I rise this morning as a cosponsor of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. We have heard and will hear this morning about large farms, small farms, medium-sized farms, baby farms, grandpa farms, a lot of farms. The fact is, large farms gain additional subsidies for every new acre they buy and every new bushel of grain they produce. In fact, the taxpayer, the Federal Government, subsidizes this transaction. Recently, the North Platte, Nebraska Telegraph wrote an excellent editorial pointing out the problems with the current farm payment system. I ask unanimous consent to print the full text of this editorial in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HAGEL. The North Platte Nebraska editorial stated in part: Fortified with subsidy money, the largest farms continue to plant millions of acres of crops, bidding up the price of land to do so. That creates more surpluses, low grain prices, continued low grain prices and a false land market. Present farm policy discourages small- and medium-sized farm operations, and it discourages young people from entering the business. Those of us in farm country recall the difficulties of the 1980s and what the agricultural community in this country went through. Partly that was a result of a false floor as a result of inflation in bidding up land prices. When it crashed, everything crashed. I suspect we are heading for such a time, unless we correct and address exactly what the North Platte Telegraph talked about in their editorial. Consider that since passage of the 1996 farm bill, we have spent a total of $62.3 billion in direct payments to producers, and that in fiscal year 2000, 63 percent of that $62.3 billion in direct payments to producers went to the largest 10 percent of farmers. I don't know, because I wasn't around 70 years ago when we established a farm policy in this country, but I think I do understand that there was a general intent not for this kind of misplacement of taxpayers' dollars to continue. The point is, this was never the intent of farm policy 70 years ago. A recent poll conducted by land grant universities showed that 81 percent of farmers want stricter payment limits. In my State of Nebraska, 85 percent agreed with tougher limits. This year, the Nebraska Farm Bureau for the first time voted to support payment limits. The amendment we are proposing would still allow for very generous farm payments, but it would remove the loopholes that allow a handful of large farmers to receive unlimited payments. This amendment will make certain that Federal commodity payments are structured to help those who need it, those whom these programs were in fact intended to help--the real farmers. It will also help ensure that those who receive Federal agricultural payments are actually involved in agricultural production. That would be novel. That, again, was the original purpose, the intent of farm support programs. This is the kind of reform I believe strengthens a new farm bill. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, made an interesting point in referencing the Washington Post editorial.

Mr. HAGEL. The question might be asked: What does the Washington Post know about farm policy? That is a legitimate question. Probably very little. The point made in that editorial is a very real point in that the continued support of the Congress, representatives of the people of this country, to pay for another $63 billion in additional farm subsidy programs isn't going to continue to be there. Until we bring some reality and common sense to our system, to our program, then politically it becomes more and more difficult each year to sustain that subsidy program. It is worth noting also that this payment limitation reform would save $1.3 billion, according to CBO. And some of those savings would be reinvested in agriculture--increasing funding for the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Loan Program--that is very important for new farmers and ranchers--expanding the Crop Insurance Program, which is, in fact, the way to eventually go in securing and sustaining the ability of farmers to produce and survive and prosper. It would boost nutrition programs. Farm support programs are vital, of course, to our farm families and our agricultural communities. We are not arguing that point. But without real payment limitation reform, we will continue to weaken the same farmers we claim we want to help. I appreciate the work done by my colleagues from North Dakota and Iowa and others on this issue and support their efforts to bring some accountability and common sense to agricultural policy. I urge my colleagues to support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. I am proud to stand with their efforts today. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the North Platte Telegraph, Dec. 16, 2001] To Too Few, Too Much--Government Needs To Limit Farm Subsidies As the U.S. Senate debated the farm bill this week, there was at least one thing on which senators seemed to agree: federal farm payments to the largest farmers are too large. Even farm-state senators decry the problem. Nebraska Sens. Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, along with colleagues from Iowa and the Dakotas, have worked on amendments to curb the excess. The problem, simply stated, is that more than two-thirds of federal farm payments go to fewer than 10 percent of farms. Fortified with subsidy money, the largest farms nationwide continue to plant millions of acres of crops, bidding up the price of land to do so. That creates more surpluses, low grain prices and a false land market. On hearing the news, the first thought is to urge that subsidies be eliminated. That would take care of the abuse and save tax-payers money. But farm subsidies are necessary. With abundant farmland and hardworking and talented farmers, the United States constantly produces more food than its people can consume. The excess goes to buyers in other nations. But when foreign markets for farm products fall to materialize, such as in 1999 when Asian economies collapsed, U.S. farmers need federal assistance. That help is vital here in Nebraska, where the economy is dependent on agriculture. The challenge of federal subsidies is in their design. The law is complex. Flaws are magnified. Here's a flaw everyone agrees on: virtually unlimited farm payments make for too few farmers. Once, farming was a lifestyle choice. Now, it has become a big business. Unlimited federal farm payments make the problem worse. Present farm policy discourages small and medium-sized farm operations, and it discourages young people from entering the business. For years, farmers and city folks alike have grumbled about the farm program. That grumbling has been amplified by an environmental group willing to get the facts. At www.ewg.org, the Environmental Working Group lists virtually every farmer in the nation that received federal dollars during the past five years. It lists every dollar the farmer received--and from what federal program. The list is a stunning achievement, assembled from public records by diligent people. And the content is stunning. Click on the information for Nebraska and you can see the money received by more than 35,000 farmers. From 1996 to 2000, the largest farmer received $2.65 million. The 10th largest got about half that amount, $1.32 million. Many received sizable sums. The 100th largest got $625,000. Hagel, along with senators from North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa, has proposed an absolute maximum cap of $275,000 in any one year. If farms are big enough to net $2.5 million in profits during three years, they would get nothing. Those limits aren't enough. Only a fraction of the nation's farmers could net $2.5 million in three years. Limiting the maximum payment in any one year to about $275,000 would cut funds for only the largest 100 or so farms last year. Farmers, speaking through a poll taken a few months ago, said a limit of about $60,000 would be fine. While that limit would drastically cut into large-scale agribusinesses that have grown up around the farm program during times of record-low grain prices, it is a worthy target. big winners in farm subsidy policies (These figures, taken from the Environmental Working Group Web site, show the top-50 recipients of federal farm subsidies in Nebraska for the last four years.) Here are the top Nebraska recipients of federal farm aid between the years 1996 and 2000. Rank, name, location, and total. 1. C J Farms Gen Ptnr, Oxford, $2.6 million. 2. Kaliff Farms, York, $2.5 million. 3. Bartlett Partnership, Bartlett, $1.8 million. 4. Danielski Hvsting, Valentine, $1.7 million. 5. Niobrara Farms, Atkinson, $1.7 million. 6. H r-w Farming, Friend, $1.6 million. 7. Merrill Land Co., Gen Ptnr, Ogallala, $1.4 million. 8. Glenn Elting & Sons, Edgar, $1.3 million. 9. Osantowski Bros., Bellwood, $1.3 million. 10. Reynolds Farms, Broken Bow, $1.3 million. 11. Western Neb Farm Comp, Venango, $1.3 million. 12. Woitaszewski Brothers, Wood River, $1.2 million. 13. J D Hirschfeld & Sons, Benedict, $1.2 million. 14. Kason Farms, North Platte, $1.2 million. 15. Marsh Farms, Hartington, $1.1 million. 16. Safranek, Irrigation, Merna, $1.1 million. 17. Schulz-Finch, Paxton, $1.1 million. 18. Shanle Bros, Albion, $1 million. 19. Kck Farms, Scribner, $1 million. 20. Heine Farms, Fordyce, $1 million. 21. Craig & Terry Ebberson, Coleridge, $1 million. 22. Owl Canyon Farms, Madrid, $1 million. 23. Wohlgemuth Farms, Holdrege, $994,420. 24. Wallinger Farm, Stuart, $989,312. 25. J D M Farms, Shickley, $984,687. 26. Ebberson Farms, Coleridge, $975,465. 27. Pospisll Farms, Friend, $974,449. 28. Kracl Family Ptnr, Oneill, $967,331. 29. Orville Hoffschneider & Sons, Waco, $954,950. 30. Bender Bros, Lindsay, $941,679. 31. Rowen J Kempf & Sons, Shickley $941,600. 32. Board Of Regents U of N Lincoln, $920,646. 33. Kirkholm Farms, South Sioux City, $914,320. 34. Cruise Farms Ptnr, Pleasanton, $911,159. 35. Wallin Brothers Gen Ptnr., Imperial, $898,041. 36. Adams Farm Partnership, Broken Bow, $859,111. 37. Bettger Bros, Fairmont, $879,963. 38. Stanek Brothers, Walthill, $870,553. 39. Taake Bros, Tilden, $869,093. 40. B T R Partnership, Nebraska City, $868,185. 41. Alfs Farms Prtnr, Shickley, $865,645. 42. Moore Farms, Cambridge, $852,346. 43. Terryberry Farms G.p., Imperial, $847,856. 44. Andersen Farms, Inc, Dakota City, $847,280. 45. D & B Farms Partnership, Holdrege, $830,156. 46. Hobbs Farms, Ewing, $815,213. 47. Robin & Barb Irvine, Ravenna, $805,978. 48. Sears Brothers, Ainsworth, $805,202. 49. H E Strand & Sons, Imperial, $804,585.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Crapo amendment to strike the proposed Water Conservation Program from the farm bill that we are debating today on the Senate floor. The creation of the Water Conservation Program, as proposed in this current legislation, would set a very dangerous farm policy precedent. It would open the door to federal government infringement on state water rights. There would be many unintended consequences for the nation's agricultural producers--the people we are trying to assist today. This provision is a threat to private property rights and conflicts with individual state water laws and programs. As Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns said: To tie state-administered water rights into such a program creates another federal nexus whereby the federal government can leverage water away from our agricultural producers and water users permanently. . . . Nebraska simply cannot agree to any such program. Governor Johanns clearly identified the dangers of the current legislation. All states care about water conservation and wildlife protection. For example, the State of Nebraska is currently working with Wyoming and Colorado, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to craft a Cooperative Agreement for endangered species management on the Platte River. States do not need more federal dictates and regulation. As one irrigation district manager in western Nebraska said, ``there could be significant consequences with this water conservation proposal as it is written in this legislation. The process of evaluating these impacts would be very complicated. Each state has different laws and issues.'' Additionally, the current proposal has not been debated in the House or Senate Agriculture Committees, or in the oversight committees responsible for the Endangered Species Act. This issue deserves significant study, review and analysis before we move forward with federal legislation. There are too many problems in this proposal--too many questions yet to be answered. We should not impose additional, unnecessary restrictions on water and property rights for our states and our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Crapo amendment to strike the Water Conservation Program from the underlying bill.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Bond amendment. This amendment would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to review the proposed actions of other Federal agencies to determine if those actions are likely to adversely impact agriculture producers. Should the Secretary find that such an action would jeopardize a producer's safety or economic well-being, the Secretary could work with other agencies to identify the alternatives least likely to cause harm. This authority is long overdue. For the first time, the government would be forced to determine in advance how its actions might impact America's farmers and ranchers. That is only fair. And no one within the government is better qualified to make that determination that the Secretary of Agriculture. For too long, Federal regulators have made farmers and livestock producers bear the burden and cost of government decisions. The result has been that real people suffer. That is unfair. That is wrong. This amendment will put some justice back into the system by reining in regulatory agencies, and giving agriculture a voice in the regulatory process. In my State of Nebraska, we have seen the disastrous impact that Federal regulations have had on our farmers and livestock producers. This amendment pursues some of the goals of legislation that I introduced earlier this year. My bill, the ``Private Property Rights Act'', would require the Federal Government to conduct an economic impact analysis before taking any action that would inhibit or restrict the use of private property. The amendment before us today is more narrow in scope. But it will make government agencies think through the consequences before they act on rules that hinder those who work America's fields, feedlots and pastures. It will put some balance back into the system by reining in over- reaching regulatory agencies. And most importantly, it will give agriculture producers a seat at the table when it comes to make and reviewing new regulations. I appreciate the work done by the senior Senator from Missouri on this issue, and support his efforts to bring some common sense and reality to the system. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond amendment.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise to commend Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell for their leadership in crafting the Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. I am here today to state my continued support of international economic assistance for programs that utilize cooperatives and credit unions. Last year, Senators Grams, Feingold and I sponsored the Support for Overseas Development Act, S. 3072. This Act was included as part of a larger bill, the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance and International Anti-Corruption Act, H.R. 4673, which was signed into public law on October 17, 2000. This bipartisan legislation enhances current language in Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Overseas cooperatives foster similar principles abroad that U.S. cooperatives are based on: free democratic associations of mutual benefit for members. For four decades, cooperatives and credit unions have proven to be an effective and efficient way to assist people in developing and market transition countries. Currently, U.S. cooperatives are working in over 67 different countries. Under our legislation, USAID is encouraged to put greater priority on the development of agricultural cooperatives for marketing, processing and inputs. USAID should explore community-based cooperatives for rural electric and telephone service when national utilities are privatized. Strong financial cooperatives, such as credit unions and farm credit associations, are ways to generate member-owned savings and provide micro-loans to entrepreneurs and farmers. Housing and community development cooperatives can address issues such as daycare for HIV/ AIDS, orphans and community responses to environmental problems such as solid waste collection. The Administrator of USAID, Andrew Natsios, is currently putting together a report to Congress regarding the implementation plan for this legislation. I am looking forward to reviewing this report. Credit unions and rural cooperatives are able to mobilize local savings or equity for micro-loans as a way to provide greater food security, the world's poor need access to microenterprise loans, credit and savings. Rural areas in developing countries need electricity and telecommunications, yet history shows that there are insufficient profits for private companies to enter these markets. Cooperatives should be part of programs pursued by the World Bank and other multilateral institutions to enhance rural communities as part of their private sector approaches. USAID can tap cooperative methodologies to bridge ethnic and sectarian differences to build communities in areas that are rife with conflict. In communities ravaged by HIV/AIDS, war, terrorism and inequality, cooperatives empower communities. Cooperatives are direct and meaningful expressions of diplomacy where poor people can participate in decision-making that affects their daily lives. Overseas cooperatives are an important way to promote broad-based economic, political and social development. I am looking forward to progress on this legislation in fiscal year 2002.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, since the brutal assault on our Nation almost 3 weeks ago, Americans of all walks of life have asked the question: How can I help in the fight against terrorism? One option is the Rewards for Justice Fund, a nonprofit organization that was created in the days following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The fund was announced on the Today Show on October 1, 2001. Since 1984, the Rewards for Justice Program has quietly but effectively thwarted terrorism by using reward payments to obtain information on terrorists' locations and plans. The Rewards for Justice Program enables individual citizens to unite and make financial contributions to the Department of State Rewards for Justice Program. Money raised by individual citizens responding to the Fund's call to action, will be turned over directly to the State Department's anti- terrorism program. The Rewards for Justice Fund represents the first broad based fund of individual citizen contributions to be accepted by the Department of State to enhance the anti-terrorism program. Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security David Carpenter, says: ``It's clear to us that the Rewards for Justice Program saves lives, in that those who have perpetrated crimes against us in the past often intend to perpetrate additional crimes. The information we receive by offering rewards has saved countless lives and we are confident it will save additional lives in the future.'' In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Americans have shown tremendous resolve in raising money to help the victims and their families. Now, the same involvement and spirit that is the trademark of our great country will be focused on the very important quest of tracking and apprehending terrorists, both at home and abroad. Information on the Rewards for Justice Fund can be found on the Internet at www.rewardsfund.com. For more information on the State Department's Rewards for Justice Program see their website at www.dssrewards.net/index.htm.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I appreciate very much the time of my friend and colleague from Arkansas. I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the Vietnam bilateral trade agreement, and I support this agreement with much enthusiasm. It was 2 years ago in August that my brother Tom and I returned to Vietnam after 31 years. I left Vietnam in December of 1968 as a U.S. Army infantryman. My brother Tom left 1 month after I did in January 1969. We went to Hanoi, Saigon, which is now Ho Chi Minh City. We went to the Mekong Delta. We went to areas where we had served together as infantry squad leaders with the 9th Infantry Division. What we observed during that time 2 years ago was something rather remarkable. Each of us had no preconditions put upon our return trip as to what we might see or hear. We were there at the invitation of Ambassador Peterson to cut the ribbon to open our new consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. What we saw was a thriving, industrious nation. We saw a nation of over 70 million people, the great majority of those people born after 1975. That is when the United States quite unceremoniously left Vietnam. The reason that is important is because that is a generation that was born after the war that harbors no ill will toward the United States. That is a developing generation of leadership that is completely different from the Communist totalitarian leadership that has presided in Vietnam. I believe I am clear eyed in this business of foreign relations and who represents America's friends and allies and who does not. This business is imperfect, this business is imprecise--this business being foreign relations. Trade is very much a part of foreign relations. Why is that? Because it is part of our relations with another nation. It is part of our role in a region of the world that strategically, geopolitically, and economically is important to us. Trade is part of foreign relations because it is a dynamic that represents stability and security, and when nations are stable, when there is security, when there is an organized effort to improve economies, open up a society, develop into a democracy. That is not always easy. It was not easy for this country. I remind us all that 80 years ago the Presiding Officer of the Senate today could not vote in this country. We should be a bit careful as we lecture and moralize across the globe as to standards for America 2001 or standards for America 1900, the point being that trade is a very integral part of our relationships with other nations. I suspect that if there ever was a time in the history of this young nation called America when our relationships with other nations are rather critical, it is right now. Should we pass a trade agreement with a country based on what happened in this Nation on September 11? No. Should we overstate the trade dynamic as the President continues to work with the Congress to develop an international coalition to take on and defeat global terrorism? No. Should we be clear eyed in our trade relationships, evaluate them, pass them, and implement them on the basis of what is good for our country? Yes. If a trade agreement is good for our country, should it be good for the other country? Yes. Will this trade agreement be good for Vietnam? Yes. Why is that good for us? It is good for us, first of all, because it breaks down trade barriers and allows our goods and our services an opportunity to compete in this new market called Vietnam. Will it be enlightening, dynamic, and change overnight, and I will therefore see much Nebraska beef and wheat move right into Vietnam within 12 months? No, of course not. That is not how the world works. Every trade agreement into which this country has entered, as flawed, imperfect, and imprecise as they are--and they all are--what is the alternative? Whom do we isolate when we do not trade? How do we further stability in a region of the world? How do we further our own interests, the interests of peace and stability and prosperity in the world? Let us not forget that the breeding ground for terrorism is always in the nations with no hope, always in the nations that have been bogged down in the dark abyss of poverty and hunger. That discontent, that conflict, is where the evil begins. I say these things because I think they are important as we debate this Vietnam trade agreement because they are connected to the bigger issues we are facing in the country. I do not stand in this Chamber and say it because of this great challenge we face today and we will face tomorrow and we will face years into the horizon, but I say it because it is good for this country. That part of the world, Southeast Asia, where China is on the north of Vietnam and at the tip of Southeast Asia, is in great conflict today. Indonesia needs the kind of stability and trade relationships that we can help build. It is in the interest of our country, our future, and the world. Just as this body did last week when we passed the Jordanian bilateral trade agreement, so should this body pass the Vietnam bilateral trade agreement. I hope after we have completed that act today, we will soon move to the next level of trade, which is the largest, most comprehensive, and probably most important, and that is to once again give the President of the United States trade promotion authority. It has been known as fast-track authority. Every President in this country, in the history of our country since 1974, has been granted that authority. Why is that? In 1974, a Republican President was granted that fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements and bring them back before the Congress, by a Democratic Congress, which was clearly in the best interest of this country, and it still is. Unfortunately, since 1994 the President of the United States, including the last President, President Clinton, and this new President, President Bush, has been without trade promotion authority. What has that meant to our country? It has meant something very simple and clear. That is, the President does not have the authority to negotiate trade agreements and bring them back to the Congress for an up-or-down vote. What does that mean in real terms as far as jobs are concerned and for the people in New York, Arkansas, and Nebraska, all the States represented in this great Chamber? It means less opportunity, fewer good jobs, better paying jobs, more opportunities to sell goods and services. So I hope as we continue to build momentum along the trade route and on the trade agenda, somewhat magnified by the events of September 11, we will get to a trade agenda soon in this body that once again allows this body to debate trade promotion authority for the President of the United States and will grant the President that authority we have granted Presidents on a bipartisan basis since 1974. That is the other perspective, it seems to me, that we need to reflect on as we look at this debate today. In these historic, critical times, I close by saying I hope my colleagues take a very clear, close look at this issue and attach all the different dynamics that are attached to this particular trade bill, and therefore urge my colleagues to vote for the Vietnam bilateral trade agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Let's try 5 minutes. I appreciate that.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Jordanian free trade agreement. I wish also to strongly support the remarks just given by the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. In my opinion, he has calibrated this exactly right. He has framed it right. He has made poignant remarks about issues that are most important to this debate this day but a continued debate on trade this body must have, a debate which will take us, I hope, at some point in the near future, to the question of granting to the President of the United States what has been referred to as fast-track authority but now is referred to as trade promotion authority. September 11 highlighted why we need to strengthen our relations with the rest of the world. Tools that will be required to combat terrorism include more than just military power. I think most of us recognize that terrorism is not about human destruction; it is about holding nations and societies and peoples captive, hostage to the fear of terror. Terrorists are best able to harness the fears and prejudices of impoverished people to gain support for terrorist acts such as those that occurred on September 11. These areas are the breeding grounds of terrorism: the impoverished, the downtrodden, those people of the world with little or no hope. To combat terrorism and the support of terrorists, we need to broaden the understanding of what America stands for and to continue to help improve the lives of these impoverished people around the world. I believe trade helps do that. Trade also helps develop market economies and strengthens democracies. What does that mean? It is not an end unto itself but to stabilize regions of the world, stabilize governments, and help maintain responsible governments and relationships and standards of living and accountability and responsible action. That is what trade can do and has done. At our Banking Committee hearing last week, Chairman Greenspan stated that global economics relies on the movement of people and goods. The openness of economies is critical to that growth. We are talking about one small part of that larger universe of trade today. But nonetheless, it is an important part of this debate. The New York Times article by Tom Friedman last week pointed out that through all of the instability in the Middle East, Jordan last year grew in real numbers at about 4 percent. And as we are able to encourage and participate with Jordan through these bilateral trade agreements, we will continue to help Jordan grow, which helps, again, stabilize a very important region of the world. As Senator Gramm has pointed out, this agreement is far from perfect. In my opinion, sanctions should never be part of a market-opening trade agreement for many of the same reasons Senator Gramm enunciated and delineated with precision. Sanctions do not address the root of environmental or labor problems or other such problems. These are currently much better handled at other international organizations such as the United Nations and international labor organizations in other areas. I shall not go back and deal with the same area about which Senator Gramm talked. But sanctions will actually harm countries and will limit the much-needed capital they receive from exporting to the United States. For the reasons that have been stated before, the economy is a fundamental dynamic influencing a country's political stability, hence world peace. Trade contributes to a country's security for two reasons: It establishes relationships and understandings between two nations, and it raises the standard of living for nations and encourages that stability. In my opinion, this debate today is a good beginning to address a comprehensive trade agenda this Congress must have. This Congress must ultimately grant President Bush trade promotion authority. TPA is in the clear and vital interests of this country, and security and economic interests are interconnected and dependent on each other. Today, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this agreement, as flawed as it may be. But I consider it a good opening for the bigger trade debate issues that must come from this Congress. It is a good beginning. But we are far from the kind of finish that will be required not only for the trade interests of this country but the security interests of America and the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to speak about the new broadcast service proposed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors for fiscal year 2002. The goal is to provide broadcasts that will appeal to a broad Arabic-speaking audience by providing news and information about events in the region. The working name for this station is the Middle East Radio Network. It would be a 24 hour per day, 7 days per week Arabic-language station to be delivered via a combination of local MW and FM, and shortwave to areas where local delivery is not possible. Programming will include news, music, talk, and interactive programs with listener participation. The Broadcasting Board of Governors plans to feature reliable news and discussion of issues relevant to the audience in a format to appeal to young adults and to news-seekers of all ages. The programs will embody two important themes: individual choice and respect for others. In a region where more than half of the population is under 25, a successful station must appeal to young people who are the best hope to end the cycle of violence that has ravaged the region. I know my colleague from Washington would like to discuss the delivery of this new service in the Middle East, and I invite her to comment. Mrs. Murray. The expansion and enhancement of our radio programming in the Middle East are critical to the success of our policies in the region. The proposed service would reach audiences in the West Bank and Gaza, the Gulf, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Sudan in the most popular media of AM, FM and satellite program delivery. This is an area where we cannot afford to deliver our message through a third party broadcaster, and we must deliver accurate information about events occurring in the region. We must be an accessible voice in the region with a program and format that will attract a broader audience. This expanded service will also provide the region with increased exposure to news and information and Western journalistic standards of a free press. This provision of information will help counter the existing regional broadcasts which are often censored or under state control. I am confident this increased information will help us further our policy goals of establishing peace and stability in the region. In light of the terrible events of this week, I appreciate the opportunity to register my support for this program and our international broadcasting efforts. I would also add that I concur with the comments of my colleagues.