Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Banking Act of 1999. I am again joined in the effort by my distinguished colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. We originally introduced this legislation during the last Congress. This legislation was incorporated into a more comprehensive financial regulatory relief bill that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. We fully expect it will be enacted into law during this Congress. Passage of this bill will remove one of the last vestiges of an obsolete interest rate control system. Abolishing the statutory requirement that prohibits incorporated businesses from owning interest bearing checking accounts will provide America's small business owners, farmers, and farm cooperatives with a funds management tool that is long overdue. Passage of this bill will ensure America's entrepreneurs can compete effectively with larger businesses. My experience as a businessman has shown me, firsthand, that it's extremely important for anyone trying to maximize profits to be able to invest funds wisely for maximum efficiencies. Let me quote from a December, 1997 letter I received from a constituent, Mary Jo Bousek. Mary Jo owns a commercial property company. She writes: ``I was very pleased to see that you sponsored a bill to allow banks to pay interest on checking accounts for partnerships and corporations. When we changed our rental properties from a sole proprietorship to a Limited Liability Company, we suddenly began losing about $1500 a year in interest on our bank account. This seems totally unreasonable and unfair.'' Mary Jo is right. It is unfair. During President Ronald Reagan's first term, one of his early actions was to abolish many provisions of the antiquated interest rate control system the banking system was required to use. With this change to the laws, Americans were finally able to earn interest on their checking accounts deposited in banks. Unfortunately, one aspect of the old system left untouched by the change in law was not allowing America's businesses to share in the good fortune. Complicating matters is the growing impact of nonbanking institutions that offer deposit-like money accounts to individuals and corporations alike. Large brokerage firms have long offered interest on deposit accounts they maintain for their customers. This places these firms at an advantage over community banks that can't offer their corporate customers interest on their checking accounts. While I support business innovation, I don't believe it's fair when any business gains a competitive edge over another due to government interference through overregulation. This is exactly the case we have with banking laws that stifle bankers, especially America's small community bankers, and give an edge to another segment of the financial community. The Small Business Banking Act of 1999 seeks to correct this imbalance and allow community banks to compete fairly with brokerage firms. I'm pleased to say our bill has the strong support of America's Community Bankers, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. This bill has the support of many of the banks, thrifts, and small businesses in my home state of Nebraska. These important organizations represent a crosscurrent of the type of support Senator Reed and I have for our bill. Senator Reed and I also have the support of the Federal banking regulators. In their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements'', the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, stated they believe the statutory prohibition against payment of interest on business checking accounts no longer serves a public purpose. I heartily agree. Mr. President, this is a straightforward bill that will do away with an unnecessary regulation that burdens American business. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Banking Act of 1999. I am again joined in the effort by my distinguished colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. We originally introduced this legislation during the last Congress. This legislation was incorporated into a more comprehensive financial regulatory relief bill that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. We fully expect it will be enacted into law during this Congress. Passage of this bill will remove one of the last vestiges of an obsolete interest rate control system. Abolishing the statutory requirement that prohibits incorporated businesses from owning interest bearing checking accounts will provide America's small business owners, farmers, and farm cooperatives with a funds management tool that is long overdue. Passage of this bill will ensure America's entrepreneurs can compete effectively with larger businesses. My experience as a businessman has shown me, firsthand, that it's extremely important for anyone trying to maximize profits to be able to invest funds wisely for maximum efficiencies. Let me quote from a December, 1997 letter I received from a constituent, Mary Jo Bousek. Mary Jo owns a commercial property company. She writes: ``I was very pleased to see that you sponsored a bill to allow banks to pay interest on checking accounts for partnerships and corporations. When we changed our rental properties from a sole proprietorship to a Limited Liability Company, we suddenly began losing about $1500 a year in interest on our bank account. This seems totally unreasonable and unfair.'' Mary Jo is right. It is unfair. During President Ronald Reagan's first term, one of his early actions was to abolish many provisions of the antiquated interest rate control system the banking system was required to use. With this change to the laws, Americans were finally able to earn interest on their checking accounts deposited in banks. Unfortunately, one aspect of the old system left untouched by the change in law was not allowing America's businesses to share in the good fortune. Complicating matters is the growing impact of nonbanking institutions that offer deposit-like money accounts to individuals and corporations alike. Large brokerage firms have long offered interest on deposit accounts they maintain for their customers. This places these firms at an advantage over community banks that can't offer their corporate customers interest on their checking accounts. While I support business innovation, I don't believe it's fair when any business gains a competitive edge over another due to government interference through overregulation. This is exactly the case we have with banking laws that stifle bankers, especially America's small community bankers, and give an edge to another segment of the financial community. The Small Business Banking Act of 1999 seeks to correct this imbalance and allow community banks to compete fairly with brokerage firms. I'm pleased to say our bill has the strong support of America's Community Bankers, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. This bill has the support of many of the banks, thrifts, and small businesses in my home state of Nebraska. These important organizations represent a crosscurrent of the type of support Senator Reed and I have for our bill. Senator Reed and I also have the support of the Federal banking regulators. In their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements'', the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, stated they believe the statutory prohibition against payment of interest on business checking accounts no longer serves a public purpose. I heartily agree. Mr. President, this is a straightforward bill that will do away with an unnecessary regulation that burdens American business. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Dorgan to introduce tax legislation that will help our family farmers cope with the economic crisis now affecting them. Our tax code is full of provisions that are unfair and punitive. We need to overhaul our tax code to make it flatter, fairer and simpler. However, until the present tax code is overhauled, it is important that we fix specific provisions of the tax code to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly and equally. In the 105th Congress we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation included capital gains tax and federal estate tax relief. It was a good first step, but we can't stop there. We have much more to do. We need more capital gains tax relief, and I will keep pushing for more cuts and the eventual elimination of the tax. The federal estate tax also needs to be abolished. The estate tax is a leading cause for the break-up of family-run businesses, including farming, and I will continue to work for its elimination. Additionally, we need to provide all American taxpayers with an across-the-board tax cut. We gave most Americans serious capital gains tax relief in 1997, but we neglected the family farmer. We now have the opportunity and obligation to correct this omission. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 created a $500,000 exclusion for homeowners on the sale of a principal residence, but this does not adequately address the needs of family farmers. Most farmers put whatever profit they earn from their hard work back into the land, not their home. As a result, the $500,000 exclusion for the sale of a principal residence does not provide the same level of relief to the family farmer as it does for the vast majority of others. So, when family farmers are forced to sell their farms due to economic downturns, not only are they out of the farming business, but the federal government is waiting to take a large portion in taxes on the sale of their home and farmland. The legislation that Senator Dorgan and I are introducing would help ease the financial burden associated with selling the farm. It would allow the family farmer to take advantage of capital gains tax relief. It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses and/or surrounding farmlands. This legislation is not a cure-all solution to the many problems now affecting our family farmers and ranchers. However, it will help. There are many other things that can be done including more tax relief in the areas of the estate tax and capital gains tax. We need to continue to open new markets for our commodities and knock down unilateral economic sanctions that are unfairly punishing our farmers. The future of U.S. agriculture lies in export expansion and trade reform. This tax legislation starts the process, but we must continue to push forward to help our family farmers and ranchers.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Food and Medicine Sanctions Relief Act of 1999. Joining us as cosponsors are our colleagues Senators Dorgan, Grams, Harkin, Lugar, Roberts, and Warner. This bill makes the simple statement that we should not include food and medicine in any unilateral sanction or embargo we may place on another country. Food and medicine are the most fundamental of human needs. Food and medicine should have no place in any sanctions we may impose on other countries because we do not like the policies of an aggressive or oppressive government. We have gone too far in imposing unilateral economic sanctions on other nations. Sanctions can be a tool of foreign policy, but too often then have become a substitute for foreign policy. From 1993 to 1996, the United States imposed 61 unilateral economic sanctions on 35 nations. We now have some form of sanctions on more than half of the world's population. It is time that we say ``no more.'' This legislation says that we will no longer use farm policy as a foreign policy weapon. The pace of change today is unprecedented in modern history, and maybe all of history. Trade, and particularly the trade in food and medicine, is the common denominator that ties together the nations of the world. American exports of food and medicine acts to build bridges around the world. It strengthens ties between people and demonstrates the basic humanitarian impulse of the American people. We live in a dynamic, interconnected world. Sanctions without the support of our allies only hurt us. And from a foreign policy perspective, unilateral sanctions rarely achieve their goal. Their real harm is on U.S. producers. It's estimated that sanctions cost the U.S. economy more than $20 billion each year. If a nation can't purchase products from the United States, particularly agricultural products, other nations are more than ready to fill the needs of those markets. American agriculture and the U.S. government must send a strong message to our customers and our competitors around the world--our agricultural producers are going to be consistent and reliable suppliers of quality and plentiful agricultural products. Once foreign agricultural markets are lost--for whatever reason--it can take decades to restore them. In 1973, the U.S. banned soybean exports to Japan. What did that accomplish? It turned Brazil into a significant soybean producer, and America has never fully recovered its soybean market share in Japan . . . and for good reasons, because it raised questions about the reliability of America as an agricultural supplier. Another example is that the Soviet grain embargo of 1979 cost the U.S. $2.3 billion in lost farm exports and USDA compensation to farmers. When the U.S. cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, France, Canada, Australia and Argentina stepped in to claim this market and the former Soviet states have been timid buyers of U.S. farm products ever since. This is also the right thing to do. It's beneath this great nation to withhold medicine and food as a tool to implement its foreign policy. We are the most powerful nation on earth. Removing these items from the U.S. arsenal of economic sanctions will say to the poor and hungry of the world that they will not have to suffer the consequences of their government's actions. I am from a Midwestern state, a large agriculture exporting state. But there is not a farmer or rancher in Nebraska who would say, ``I would trade America's national or security interests just to sell more corn or beef.'' That is not the question. The question is whether we should place a humanitarian hardship on the people of other countries because of the actions of their governments. Doing this does not advance our country's interests. In fact, it hurts our national interest, just as it intensifies the hardship being faced today by America's agricultural producers. History has shown, Mr. President, that trade and commerce does more to change attitudes and alter behaviors over time than any one thing. Why? It improves diets; it improves standards of living; it opens societies; it exposes people who lived under totalitarian rule to the concepts of personal freedom, economic freedom, and individual choice. Ultimately, sanctions and embargoes mostly isolate ourselves. Trade embargoes isolate those who impose them. This bill is an important step forward, and is a part of the larger debate this Congress on the role of the U.S. in the world and how we intend to engage in the world. Trade is the keystone of our global engagement. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and to engage in the debate over the role of unilateral economic sanctions in American foreign policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Dorgan to introduce tax legislation that will help our family farmers cope with the economic crisis now affecting them. Our tax code is full of provisions that are unfair and punitive. We need to overhaul our tax code to make it flatter, fairer and simpler. However, until the present tax code is overhauled, it is important that we fix specific provisions of the tax code to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly and equally. In the 105th Congress we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation included capital gains tax and federal estate tax relief. It was a good first step, but we can't stop there. We have much more to do. We need more capital gains tax relief, and I will keep pushing for more cuts and the eventual elimination of the tax. The federal estate tax also needs to be abolished. The estate tax is a leading cause for the break-up of family-run businesses, including farming, and I will continue to work for its elimination. Additionally, we need to provide all American taxpayers with an across-the-board tax cut. We gave most Americans serious capital gains tax relief in 1997, but we neglected the family farmer. We now have the opportunity and obligation to correct this omission. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 created a $500,000 exclusion for homeowners on the sale of a principal residence, but this does not adequately address the needs of family farmers. Most farmers put whatever profit they earn from their hard work back into the land, not their home. As a result, the $500,000 exclusion for the sale of a principal residence does not provide the same level of relief to the family farmer as it does for the vast majority of others. So, when family farmers are forced to sell their farms due to economic downturns, not only are they out of the farming business, but the federal government is waiting to take a large portion in taxes on the sale of their home and farmland. The legislation that Senator Dorgan and I are introducing would help ease the financial burden associated with selling the farm. It would allow the family farmer to take advantage of capital gains tax relief. It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses and/or surrounding farmlands. This legislation is not a cure-all solution to the many problems now affecting our family farmers and ranchers. However, it will help. There are many other things that can be done including more tax relief in the areas of the estate tax and capital gains tax. We need to continue to open new markets for our commodities and knock down unilateral economic sanctions that are unfairly punishing our farmers. The future of U.S. agriculture lies in export expansion and trade reform. This tax legislation starts the process, but we must continue to push forward to help our family farmers and ranchers.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President I rise today in support of this measure which will inject some much-needed common-sense into our nation's agricultural trade policy. This measure amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 and restricts the President's ability to single out agriculture when foreign embargoes are imposed. Food is basic humanitarian need and should not be included in economic embargoes or sanctions imposed by the United States. Our relationships with other nations must not be held captive to one issue. But our relationships with other nations are complicated. They include trade and commerce. They include U.S. interests abroad, national defense, human rights, and humanitarian efforts. But we must not allow one dynamic of our relationship with all other nations on this globe to be held captive to just one issue. Trade and U.S. agriculture are virtually indistinguishable. The Soviet grain embargo of 1976 cost the U.S. $2.3 billion in lost farm exports and USDA compensation to farmers. When the U.S. cut off sales of wheat to protest Soviet invasion of Afghanistan--France, Canada, Australia, and Argentina stepped in to claim this market and the former Soviet states have been timid buyers of U.S. farm products ever since. In recent months, Nebraska farmers, on many occasions, discussing the negative effects of the Carter grain embargo and many fear that a similar action could happen again. With more focus on sanctions and foreign policy, an anti-agriculture embargo measure is timely. History has shown, Mr. President, that trade and commerce engagement in reaching out does more to change attitudes and alter behavior than any one thing. Why? It improves diets; it improve standards of living; it opens society; it exposes people who have lived under totalitarian rule, who have had limited exposure to freedom, to liberty, to economic freedom, products, choice, consumerism. That is what trade does. Not one among us believes that just trade alone is all we need. But it is an important, integral part of our relationships around the world. We live in a very dynamic time. The light of change today in the world is unprecedented in modern history, and maybe all of history. Food, fiber, and trade are common denominators of mutual interests of all the peoples of the world. We must not isolate ourselves. Trade embargoes isolate those who impose trade embargoes. We need dynamic policies for dynamic times. The world is not static. This is a strong step forward. This is the beginning of the larger debate that this Congress will have and must have about the role of the United States in the world and how we intend to engage the world, and trade is a very important part of that. Embargoes and sanctions without the support of our allies only hurt us. From a foreign policy perspective, embargoes rarely achieve their goal. Their real harm is on U.S. agricultural producers. It's estimated that sanctions and embargoes cost the U.S. economy more than $20 billion each year. We have got to bring some common sense to our trade policy. American agriculture and the U.S. government must send a strong message to our many customers and our competitors. U.S. farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses are a consistent and reliable supplier of quality and plentiful agricultural products. Support of the Agriculture-Specific Embargo Act will send a strong message that U.S. agriculture will be once again considered a reliable supplier of food and fiber around the globe. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my friends and colleagues who have worked on these issues diligently, who will continue to provide leadership, not just to this body but to the country, to the world, and to our farmers and our ranchers, our producers, and our citizens. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this very important measure. Again, I say to my colleagues that this is an engagement we must be a part of today.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President I rise today in support of this measure which will inject some much-needed common-sense into our nation's agricultural trade policy. This measure amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 and restricts the President's ability to single out agriculture when foreign embargoes are imposed. Food is basic humanitarian need and should not be included in economic embargoes or sanctions imposed by the United States. Our relationships with other nations must not be held captive to one issue. But our relationships with other nations are complicated. They include trade and commerce. They include U.S. interests abroad, national defense, human rights, and humanitarian efforts. But we must not allow one dynamic of our relationship with all other nations on this globe to be held captive to just one issue. Trade and U.S. agriculture are virtually indistinguishable. The Soviet grain embargo of 1976 cost the U.S. $2.3 billion in lost farm exports and USDA compensation to farmers. When the U.S. cut off sales of wheat to protest Soviet invasion of Afghanistan--France, Canada, Australia, and Argentina stepped in to claim this market and the former Soviet states have been timid buyers of U.S. farm products ever since. In recent months, Nebraska farmers, on many occasions, discussing the negative effects of the Carter grain embargo and many fear that a similar action could happen again. With more focus on sanctions and foreign policy, an anti-agriculture embargo measure is timely. History has shown, Mr. President, that trade and commerce engagement in reaching out does more to change attitudes and alter behavior than any one thing. Why? It improves diets; it improve standards of living; it opens society; it exposes people who have lived under totalitarian rule, who have had limited exposure to freedom, to liberty, to economic freedom, products, choice, consumerism. That is what trade does. Not one among us believes that just trade alone is all we need. But it is an important, integral part of our relationships around the world. We live in a very dynamic time. The light of change today in the world is unprecedented in modern history, and maybe all of history. Food, fiber, and trade are common denominators of mutual interests of all the peoples of the world. We must not isolate ourselves. Trade embargoes isolate those who impose trade embargoes. We need dynamic policies for dynamic times. The world is not static. This is a strong step forward. This is the beginning of the larger debate that this Congress will have and must have about the role of the United States in the world and how we intend to engage the world, and trade is a very important part of that. Embargoes and sanctions without the support of our allies only hurt us. From a foreign policy perspective, embargoes rarely achieve their goal. Their real harm is on U.S. agricultural producers. It's estimated that sanctions and embargoes cost the U.S. economy more than $20 billion each year. We have got to bring some common sense to our trade policy. American agriculture and the U.S. government must send a strong message to our many customers and our competitors. U.S. farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses are a consistent and reliable supplier of quality and plentiful agricultural products. Support of the Agriculture-Specific Embargo Act will send a strong message that U.S. agriculture will be once again considered a reliable supplier of food and fiber around the globe. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my friends and colleagues who have worked on these issues diligently, who will continue to provide leadership, not just to this body but to the country, to the world, and to our farmers and our ranchers, our producers, and our citizens. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this very important measure. Again, I say to my colleagues that this is an engagement we must be a part of today.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues here this morning. I also wish to commend my friend, the senior Senator from Mississippi, for reintroducing his defense initiative. Missile defense is as critical a challenge as this country faces, not just for the short term, but for the long term, and I have been a strong proponent of what Senator Cochran is proposing. I wish, again, to be a cosponsor of that measure.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I have introduced S. 246, the Private Property Fairness Act of 1999. This bill will help ensure that when the Government issues regulations for the benefit of the public as a whole, it does not saddle just a few landowners with the whole cost of compliance. This bill will help enforce the U.S. Constitution's guarantee that the Federal Government cannot take private property without paying just compensation to the owner. Recent record low prices received by American agricultural producers has prompted great concern about the future of family farmers and ranchers. What we must remember is that government regulations are unfairly burdening this vital sector--hitting family farmers the hardest. The dramatic growth in Federal regulation in recent decades has focused attention on a very murky area of property law, a regulatory area in which the law of takings is not yet settled to the satisfaction of most Americans. The bottom line is that the law in this area is unfair. For example, if the Government condemns part of a farm to build a highway, it has to pay the farmer for the value of his land. But if the Government requires that same farmer stop growing crops on that same land in order to protect endangered species or conserve wetlands, the farmer gets no compensation. In both situations the Government has acted to benefit the general public and, in the process, has imposed a cost on the farmer. In both cases, the land is taken out of production and the farmer loses income. But only in the highway example is the farmer compensated for his loss. In the regulatory example, the farmer, or any other landowner, has to absorb all of the cost himself. This is not fair. The legislation I am introducing today is an important step toward providing relief from these so-called regulatory takings. My bill is a narrowly tailored approach that will make a real difference for property owners across America. It protects private property rights in two ways. First, it puts in place procedures that will stop or minimize takings by the Federal Government before they occur. The Government would have to jump a much higher hurdle before it can restrict the use of someone's privately owned property. For the first time, the Federal Government will have to determine in advance how its actions will impact the property owner, not just the wetland or the endangered species. This bill also would require the Federal Government to look for options other than restricting the use of private property to achieve its goal. Second, if heavy Government regulations diminish the value of private property, this bill would allow the landowners to plead their case in a Federal district court, instead of forcing them to seek relief. This bill makes the process easier, less costly, and more accessible and accountable so all citizens can fully protect their property rights. For too long, Federal regulators have made private property owners bear the burdens and the costs of Government land use decisions. The result has been that real people suffer. Joe Jeffrey is a farmer in Lexington, NE. Like most Americans, he is proud of his land. He believed his property was his to use and control as he saw fit. So, after 12 years of regulatory struggles, Mr. Jeffrey got fed up and decided to lease out his land. The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District now has use of the property for the next 17 years. The Government's regulatory intrusion left Mr. Jeffrey few other options. Joe Jeffrey first met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers in 1987. Mr. Jeffrey's introduction to the long arm of the Federal bureaucracy was in the form of wetlands regulations. Mr. Jeffrey was notified that he had to destroy two dikes on his land because they were constructed without the proper permits. Nearly 2 years later, the corps partially changed its mind and allowed Mr. Jeffrey to reconstruct one of the dikes because the corps lacked authority to make him destroy it in the first place. Then floods damaged part of Mr. Jeffrey's irrigated pastureland and changed the normal water channel. Mr. Jeffrey set out to return the channel to its original course by moving sand that the flood had shifted. But the Government said ``no.'' The corps told him he had to give public notice before he could repair his own property. Then came the Endangered Species Act. Neither least terns nor piping plovers--both federally protected endangered species--have ever nested on Mr. Jeffrey's property. But that didn't stop the regulators. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to designate Mr. Jeffrey's property as ``critical habitat'' for these protected species. The bureaucrats could not even agree among themselves on what they wanted done. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Control wanted the area re-vegetated. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wanted the area kept free of vegetation. Mr. Jeffrey was caught in the middle. This is a real regulatory horror story. And there's more. Today--12 years after his regulatory struggle began--Mr. Jeffrey is faced with eroded pastureland that cannot be irrigated and cannot be repaired without significant personal expense. The value of Mr. Jeffrey's land has been diminished by the Government's regulatory intrusion--but he has not been compensated. In fact, he has had to spend money from his own pocket to comply with the regulations. The Fish and Wildlife Service asked Mr. Jeffrey to modify his center pivot irrigation system to negotiate around the eroded area--at a personal cost of $20,000. And the issue is still not resolved. Mr. President, we do not need more stories like Joe Jeffrey's in America. Our Constitution guarantees our people's rights. Congress must act to uphold those rights and guarantee them in practice, not just in theory. Government regulation has gone too far. We must make it accountable to the people. Government should be accountable to the people, not the people accountable to the Government. What this issue comes down to is fairness. It is simply not fair and it is not right for the Federal Government to have the ability to restrict the use of privately owned property without compensating the owner. It violates the principles this country was founded on. This legislation puts some justice back into the system. It reins in regulatory agencies and gives the private property owner a voice in the process. It makes it easier for citizens to appeal any restrictions imposed on their land or property. It is the right thing to do. It is the just and fair thing to do.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to make a brief observation and reflect on one of the points the President made last night during his State of the Union Message. The President suggested-- recommended that America pause for a moment and understand and absorb this dynamic, exciting time that we live in. And, indeed, it is exciting, dynamic, and full of hope and opportunity. But, as I listened to the President last night--and I listened to the 20 specific mentions of more government spending for more and new programs, and as I listened to the 24 specific mentions of more Federal Government regulation--I failed to hear any reference to tax cuts, to turning back authority, turning back regulation, turning back government to the people. I connected with what he said in his observation about the times we live in. And isn't it amazing, especially when you look at the report that Freedom House issued a month ago about where the world is going today. In that report, Freedom House pointed out that for the first time since Freedom House has been calculating personal liberty in the world, more peoples are free, with more personal liberties, today than at any time in the history of their measurement; in fact, they went so far as to say maybe in the history, proportionally, of mankind. There is a long way to go, but in their calculations they said almost half of the 5.6 billion people on Earth are free today. I find that rather interesting, in that most of the world is moving this way--less government, less regulation, more personal liberty--and here the greatest Republic in the history of mankind, if you listen to the President, is going back the other way: more restrictions, more government, more regulation, and less individual freedom. On Sunday and Monday of this week I was back in Nebraska and met with teachers, students, parents. One of the things that came out of that meeting from the teachers was this observation, and I say this in light of what the President proposed last night with his advocacy of more Federal Government involvement in education. As a matter of fact, he went beyond that. He said, unless local school districts complied with what Washington said--with our money, the taxpayers' money; even more interesting--then we would cut them off. What the schoolteachers told me, those we have charged to educate our children, those who have maybe the heaviest burden except for the parents, in this debate--they tell me we don't want any more Government. But they also said this, and this is where we are missing the point: We are gliding over this gap of children from 1 to 5 or 6. When the teacher gets that child at 5 or 6, that is a molded product. That is a molded product we can work and develop, but where is the emphasis on the parental responsibility? According to the President, we are going to, in fact, do more for day care, and now summer programs, more education--the Federal Government, essentially, is going to really dictate the dynamics of our foundation. The foundation of our country is not government. The foundation of this country rests on a value system, and morals and honesty and respect for one another. That is what we build from. That is what we have always built from. Not more government programs; not more money. And, when we glide over that and act like that is not there or that is not important, or even emphasize the responsibility of parents and the responsibility of all society, we are in some trouble. I find it interesting, in reading Governor George Bush's comments yesterday, what he said: Too much hope in economics, just as we once put too much hope in Government, may be our greater challenge. He is right. We must go beyond Government, beyond economics, and go back and emphasize parental responsibility and truth and values. That is what we build from. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues here this morning. I also wish to commend my friend, the senior Senator from Mississippi, for reintroducing his defense initiative. Missile defense is as critical a challenge as this country faces, not just for the short term, but for the long term, and I have been a strong proponent of what Senator Cochran is proposing. I wish, again, to be a cosponsor of that measure.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on September 10, 1998, in my role as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion, I chaired the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on two important treaties that the Senate will ratify today. I refer to the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), collectively known as the WIPO Treaties, done at Geneva on December 20, 1996, and signed by the United States on April 12, 1997. These treaties will play a key role in assuring U.S. global competitiveness in the electronic commerce marketplace of the 21st century. The purpose of the WIPO Treaties is to respond to the challenges of protecting copyrighted works, performances and sound recordings in the realm of digital technology. The adoption of these treaties represents a major step toward achieving adequate protection of intellectual property in the growing global economy. Bringing these treaties into effect will greatly facilitate global electronic commerce, and will facilitate exports and foreign sales of U.S. copyrighted materials in markets around the world. In the hearing I chaired regarding the WIPO Treaties, the Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony from representatives of the Administration and from the information technology, telecommunications, and motion picture industries, including Jack Valenti, President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, as well as from a coalition of educational and library interests. All the witnesses gave their overwhelming support for U.S. ratification of the WIPO Treaties. However, the main message that came from the hearing was that the WIPO Treaties needed to pass in conjunction with the corresponding implementation legislation that would update current U.S. copyright laws. We will have accomplished that task. On October 8, 1998, the Senate unanimously passed the conference report to H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This legislation will allow for the full implementation of the WIPO Treaties, by modifying current U.S. law in a few areas to meet the obligations imposed by the treaties and to ensure that liability questions are clearly defined in the treaties. U.S. copyright laws are strong and are vigorously enforced. However, these changes were needed to bring them up to date so U.S. law fell into compliance with the WIPO Treaties. American creativity is the key to our competitiveness in this global economy. With so many industries in the United States protected by copyright--such as the computer software, music, recording, audio- visual and publishing industries--being among the most dynamic and fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. economy, it is important to protect these industries. In 1996, in a study commissioned by the International Intellectual Property Alliance, it was estimated that the U.S. creative industries contributed almost $280 billion to the Gross Domestic Product, and accounted for some 3.5 million jobs, surpassing any single manufacturing sector by both measures. Most important, the estimated $60 billion of foreign sales and exports by the U.S. copyright industries in 1996 made them the leading export sector of the entire economy. Consequently, the strength of legal protection in other countries for U.S. copyrighted materials is a key factor in promoting our global competitiveness. The growth of digital networks such as the Internet offers an exciting opportunity for enhanced access by U.S. creators to world markets, but also presents a threat in the form of increased digital piracy of American works of authorship. The same technology that enables rapid and efficient authorized dissemination of U.S. copyrighted materials around the world also enables pirates to make and distribute perfect copies of these materials without authorization, more rapidly and efficiently then ever before, and with less risk of detection. Network-based digital piracy threatens to inflict losses on American creators that dwarf the estimated $18-20 billion which our creative industries now lose to overseas piracy every year. For these reasons, I plan to hold a hearing next year in my subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion on the effects of software piracy on the U.S. economy as well as the global economy. Given the leading role of the U.S. creative industries in the global trade in computer software, music and recordings, and published test materials, it is clearly in the U.S. national interest for the WIPO Treaties to come into force as soon as possible. Prompt U.S. ratification of the treaties will send a clear message to other countries and will provide critical momentum to the drive to bring the treaties into force. I urge my colleagues to approve the Resolution of Ratification, and thus complete the process of giving the Senate's advice and consent to these two important treaties.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, for the time. I also wish to acknowledge, with a great amount of respect, the work that he has done on the Omnibus appropriations bill. He has done this work after being placed in an almost impossible situation, being placed in a situation not of his making. Nonetheless, the quality of his effort and leadership is recognized in this Capitol, as it has been for many years. I, too, wish to recognize that. With that said, I rise today to oppose the omnibus appropriations bill. In my opinion, this bill is the irresponsible product of a dishonest process. It is wrong for America, and I will vote against it. For the first time in a generation, this Congress balanced the Federal budget. We had a chance to deliver--deliver real tax relief for the second year in a row. Instead, we began to drift early this year by failing to pass an annual budget resolution--the first year without a budget resolution since the Budget Act became law in 1974. Now we have this unaccountable bill that gives away much of our hard-fought budget success. It is humanly impossible for any of us in this Congress to know all that is in this bill. Some parts were still changing as recently as yesterday, and the full text of the bill was not available even to most U.S. Senators until almost noon today. It will take months for us to study the more than 3,000 pages of text and learn what is in it. Yet, we are asked to vote on this package, up or down, no amendments, with a couple of hours of debate. Take it or leave it. Mr. President, that is irresponsible. That is irresponsible. We cannot forget that the American people are watching. We have to take a step back from all of this, from the swirl of negotiations and the deal-making--oh, yes, there has been a lot of deal-making--and remember who pays the bills. Whose money is it? We seem to forget whose money we are dealing with. We talk about a billion here, and a billion there-- $100 billion. Now we are up to over $500 billion in this bill. This money comes from the pockets of the American taxpayer. It is their money. It is not the Congress' money. And they are watching. The American taxpayers are watching. They are watching how we spend their hard-earned money. We don't have very good answers, certainly not in this bill. None of us knows, or could possibly know everything that the money is going for--the taxpayers' money is going for--in this bill, or how many millions of dollars have been tucked away for special projects for individual Members thrown in at the last minute behind the curtain deals. Can anyone possibly believe that this mindless process gives the American people any confidence that Congress knows what is going on, or Congress knows what it is doing, or Congress knows or cares about how we spend the taxpayers' money? The American people look at this process, and they turn away in disgust, as they should. I want to share with this body, Mr. President, a couple of comments from letters and e-mail I have received from constituents in Nebraska in the last 48 hours. This one comes from Mr. Lee Hamann of Elkhorn, NE. He writes: Absolutely incredible. The 100,000-teacher item is another hoax, just like the 100,000-police-officer scam a few years ago--that the Congress and President Clinton pulled on America. Where do the local governmental bodies get the money to continue to pay these new positions after the Federal money runs out? And who says we need 100,000 new teachers? Who invented that number? One of the biggest problems in funding education is that the majority of the money is not being spent on teachers; it's going to administration. Compliance with Federal mandates [and regulations] and a whole host of other politically correct nonsense that has nothing to do with teaching our children and maintaining good discipline in schools. If Congress wants to do something positive for education, then give us a realistic school voucher system and allow parents to deduct tuition to private schools [church or secular]. This comes from a constituent, a taxpayer. Another one from Mr. Michael J. Snyder from Edison, NE. He writes: I would like to have seen a tax cut for the family. Not everybody in Nebraska farms. Not everybody is going to get some of the extra money. There are some of us who would like to see a cut in our income tax so that we would be able to keep more of our own money to use for our own purposes. I think we can find better ways to use it than the Federal Government. Another one from David Begley from Omaha, NE. He says: Why do all the appropriations bills get done at the last minute and then the President threatens to shut down the Government and blame the Republicans? Who is in charge back there? Good question. Mr. President, I understand very well that our democracy requires compromise. There is much room for honorable give and take in negotiations--honest, open, honorable negotiations. I am well aware that our negotiators had to face a President who pushed again and again and again for irresponsible new spending programs. I did not expect this bill to be absolutely pure and free from all blemishes. None of us did. But there must be a limit. This bill gave up too much. This bill busts the budget. This bill busts the budget by more than $20 billion. I don't believe the Founding Fathers of this country ever intended for a few Members and staff to make more than one-half of a trillion dollars worth of arbitrary, closed-door decisions for the rest of us, for America--almost one-third of the Federal budget--and then present them to all other Senators and Representatives, men and women elected by the people of this country, by the taxpayers, and then say take it or leave it, an up-or-down vote. No debate, no amendments. This process, Mr. President, is not worthy of the U.S. Senate. Instead of cutting taxes, paying down the national debt, or even ``saving Social Security,'' this bill squanders the first budget surplus in almost three decades. Almost one-third of the projected surplus is going to more than $20 billion of new spending not paid for by offsetting it, by cutting any other spending. Instead of reflecting the priorities of the American people, this bill reflects on the priorities of the minority in Congress, such as $1.2 billion in new Federal money to pacify the National Education Association. Instead of less regulation, this bill gives us more government. It includes a provision that will hamstring Federal prosecutors by subjecting them to a patchwork of State ethical guidelines. On its merits, this provision never would have survived the U.S. Senate. It includes $192.5 million for the Global Environmental Facility, even though, Mr. President, the Senate and the House had rejected this level of funding. We had actually rejected it. And this is to advance a treaty, the Global Warming Treaty, that the administration does not have the guts to send to this body to debate. They don't have the guts to do it, because they know it would be defeated. But, yet, through back-door spending--and what we have given up after the House and the Senate said we weren't--but yet this is now put in this bill. We are allowing this administration to get away with it. How did something like this get into this bill? Of course, this bill also includes much that is good, much that I support and fought for, along with Chairman Stevens and others. I worked hard, like many of us, to win full funding and reforms for the International Monetary Fund. I strongly support the agricultural relief provisions and many provisions of this bill. But we should have the guts to stand up and say these and other important programs are priorities. And we should have the courage--we should have the courage--to tell the American public how we are going to pay for it. We shouldn't use budget gimmicks to hide what we have spent. This bill includes a full range of spending by the Federal Government, and it should have been subject to the full range and full scrutiny of honest, open debate. It should have been subject to debate and amendment--the most powerful, the most powerful and important tools available for the U.S. Senators to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. But, instead, this bill is presented to us without opportunity for amendment or opportunity to really know what is in this bill. Over 3,000 pages make up this bill. This ``omnibus'' bill also includes several authorization bills-- policy bills--that should have risen or fallen on their own merits, not by finding their way into this unamendable tome. Congress should set new government policy when ideas are fully debated. Congress should set new government policies when ideas are amended and considered, and defined and voted for--not when a small group of negotiators decides that idea or this idea has merit. But this ``omnibus'' bill includes entire policy bills included in this one-half-trillion-dollar, over- 3,000-page document. Many of these policy bills have been slipped in from overhauls of immigration policy to regulation of the Internet. Seven separate antidrug authorization bills were slipped into this ``omnibus'' bill. And we can't amend any of it. We can't shape it, change it, influence it, delete it. We can't do our jobs as representatives of the American people. Mr. President, this is not how the U.S. Senate should operate. The American people deserve better, and until recently they got better. Throughout the 1980s--let's go back to the 1980s--Congress did business by passing ``omnibus'' bills, or ``continuing resolutions'' very much like this one. These were unaccountable, pork-laden bills that ran thousands of pages like this bill. They made a mockery of accountability of our democratic process. And then in 1988, many of you will remember that President Reagan stood up against what he described as ``. . . monstrous continuing resolutions that pack hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spending into one bill. . . .'' In his very memorable State of the Union Address, he stacked 3,296 pages of budget bills weighing 43 pounds at the podium in the House of Representatives and implored Congress, ``Let's change all this.'' President Reagan called on Congress to pass spending bills the right way--the right way--one at a time, and he pledged to veto any future continuing resolutions. For 8 years, from 1988 through 1996, Congress did its work, as it should, as the American people expected, and passed individual appropriations bills in full and open debate. Then Congress started slipping into an old pattern. The omnibus bill that year, in 1996, rolled six of the 13 annual appropriations bills into one. This year is worse, one of the worst ever, including eight of the annual appropriations bills, plus authorization bills, in this omnibus appropriations bill. It is time for us to stand up before this old process takes new root. It is time once more to look at ourselves and declare: Let's change this. I will vote against this bill because I believe it is wrong and the process is wrong. I believe the right thing to do is to kill this bill and for Congress to keep working for the rest of this year, if it takes that, until we do this right. I believe we should worry less about the elections and polls and government by calculation and more about doing our jobs, the jobs the American people sent us here to do. But more importantly, I believe we will all work hard--I will--to prevent this unaccountable process from ever happening again. A top priority for this new Congress, the 106th Congress, that will be seated in January of next year must be, must be, to make the necessary changes and reforms to keep the budget process on track. Perhaps we should enact biennial budgeting and appropriations. The distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has talked of this; Senator Stevens has talked of this. Or we make other changes to ensure that we will put an end to this moonlight madness. This must stop. Mr. President, this is not Halloween. This isn't trick-or-treat time. This is serious business. I am prepared to work with the Senate's bipartisan leadership, with all my colleagues, to make these changes occur. The American taxpayers expect and deserve better. We owe it to the people who pay the bills. My colleagues, we can change this nonsense. We must change this nonsense. I yield the floor, and I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Senate is debating the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. In its current form, this bill is a careful compromise that has been months in the making. I had serious concerns about earlier versions of this legislation, but I am a cosponsor of today's compromise. I am confident that we have crafted the right balance among different facets of American foreign policy. Economic freedom and individual liberties are not competitors--they go hand-in-hand! We want nations that are free, that respect rights and liberties, and that have free trade and market economies. This is a bill that will focus America's attention on the desire to advance religious freedom around the world while doing no harm to America's national security, diplomatic or economic interests abroad. This is a bill that will give the President flexibility to craft a complete foreign policy--a foreign policy that does not elevate one facet of our foreign relations above all others. Religious freedom and tolerance have always been America's creed. Freedom of religion is the first freedom guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. No person anywhere in the world--no Christian, no Jew, no Hindu, no Muslim, no Buddhist, no Baha'i . . . no one--should suffer at the hand of the State for worshiping as he or she sees fit. As a beacon of liberty and freedom, America has a moral duty to speak out against religious persecution around the world and to defend for people everywhere the fundamental right of freedom of worship. At the same time, this bill recognizes that America bears a heavy and complicated burden of international leadership. Our relationships with other nations are complex, and our policies must reflect those complexities. American leadership is essential for international peace and security, free and open trade, a stable international economy and many other vital matters. Like all leaders, America must balance competing needs, interests and ideals. This bill gives the President flexibility to use the full power of American engagement to promote religious liberties abroad. America's strong commercial and diplomatic ties with other nations remain our most effective leverage to alter the behavior of authoritarian governments. American engagement abroad acts as a catalyst for change. The United States government cannot mandate religious freedom around the world, but America can lead the world in spreading respect for religious beliefs--just as we used the power of our example and determination to spread liberty, democracy and economic freedom around the globe. This bill will focus U.S. government attention on religious persecution. It will make religious freedom part of American diplomacy from the training of foreign service officers to the granting of visa requests to the use of our embassy facilities. This bill also will shine the light of day on countries, or entities within countries, that engage in religious persecution. It will require annual reporting on the state of religious freedom in every country, as well as annual publication of all actions the United States Government is taking around the world to promote religious liberty. And, this bill establishes an orderly procedure for the President to consider taking targeted, calibrated actions against the most severe violators of religious liberty. This compromise gives the President the flexibility he needs to conduct a balanced foreign policy. The President will have substantial flexibility to calibrate the most appropriate action to help change the behavior of the worst violators of religious freedom, including broad waiver authority and broad latitude to take actions other than sanctions. Congress will not be required to undertake a new series of counterproductive ``mini-MFN'' or ``mini-drug decertification'' debates about religious persecution around the world. The Commission on International Religious Freedom established by the bill will make recommendations but will have no official role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. And the President will have substantial flexibility in deciding when and how to identify countries that will be subject to action under this bill. There will be no diplomatically damaging ``list'' of countries that violate religious freedoms. Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. But it is a good bill. Congress cannot, by passing a law, put an end to religious persecution outside our borders. But we can ensure that America speaks out with one voice, with a strong voice, to make clear that we will not stand idle while people suffer because of their faith. This bill will amplify America's voice for freedom. It will strengthen the President's ability to craft a complete foreign policy in which the whole of America's national interests is not held captive to any single dynamic. Security, economics, diplomacy, trade, human rights, individual liberties--these are all part of America's national interests around the world. We can, we must, promote them all--we cannot afford to sacrifice any interest for any other interest. When Congress returns next year, we should continue the effort to expand American engagement abroad--by passing fast track trade negotiating authority, by reforming outdated and counterproductive sanctions regimes, by reviewing every international institution in which America participates to ensure they are relevant to today's challenges. And we must strengthen our military, which is the guarantor of our foreign policy. American leadership in all those areas is essential if we are to effectively promote individual liberties-- including religious liberties--around the world. We should pass this bill. And then Congress should resist the temptation to legislate further on this matter in the months and years ahead, and give this comprehensive new framework for religious freedom a chance to work. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and distinguished colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I want to very briefly reflect for a moment on the prayer just offered by the Rev. Robert Kem of Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church in Omaha. It happens, Mr. President, that is the church where my family and I often are seen--more over the few years previous to the last 2 years, because of our recent change to our residency here in Washington. Father Kem's guidance, and what that has meant to us as he continues to give spiritual guidance to so many, has been unique. He is known far outside the boundaries of just the Midwest. I think that is quite evident by the elegance of his prayer and his eloquent statement, reflecting on who we are as a Nation: All creatures, children of God. For Father Kem coming before this body today to offer guidance and prayer and hope, I am grateful. We are all better for Father Kem. To all the parishioners, those a part of the Saint Andrew's Episcopal family in Omaha, we know you are proud, as are we in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. For the information of all Senators, in light of this agreement, the leader expects the Senate to resume the agriculture appropriations conference report tomorrow morning. In addition, tomorrow afternoon, the leader expects the Senate to resume the Internet tax bill. Therefore, votes could occur with respect to that bill, as well. A cloture vote on the Internet tax bill will occur Wednesday at 10 a.m. Assuming cloture is invoked, the Senate would then remain on the Internet tax bill until disposed of. Therefore, votes can be expected throughout the day and evening on Wednesday. Having said all of that, there will be no further votes this evening, and Members can expect votes prior to noon tomorrow. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I further ask consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, to move to proceed to any available appropriations bills, conference reports, or resume the Internet bill prior to the 10 a.m. Wednesday vote, notwithstanding the invoking of cloture.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, that the Senate proceed to vote on adoption on the motion to proceed at 10 o'clock a.m. on Wednesday. Before the Chair grants the consent, for the information of all Senators, immediately following the adoption of the motion to proceed to H.R. 10, the cloture vote with respect to S. 442 would occur under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriated place in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 661, S. 2470.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate now stand in recess under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Akaka and Sessions.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Monday the Senate will convene at 11 a.m. and begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, it will be the leader's intention to begin consideration of the Agriculture appropriations conference report under a short time agreement. The Senate may also resume consideration of S. 442, the Internet tax bill. At 5:30 p.m., under a previous order, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 10, the financial services modernization bill. Further votes could occur following the cloture vote in relation to the motion to proceed, and if consent is granted, votes on or in relation to the agriculture conference report, the Internet tax bill, or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. Members are reminded that a cloture petition was filed today on the Internet tax bill. That vote will occur on Tuesday. Therefore, Members have until 1 p.m. on Monday to file first-degree amendments.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.