Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 662, S. 2474.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the following bills, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 494, S. 890; 525, S. 1398; 527, S. 2171; 528, H.R. 449; 529, H.R. 2886; 530, H.R. 3796; 541, S. 1016; 542, S. 1408; 543, S. 1990; 546, S. 2232; 550, S. 1333; 551, S. 1665; 552, S. 2129; 561, S. 469; 565, S. 2272; 571, S. 1718; 573, S. 2106; 579, H.R. 3903; 598, H.R. 3381. Further, I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments be agreed to, the bills be read the third time and passed, as amended, if amended, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills appear at the appropriate point in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

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.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 659, S. 2351.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bills, en bloc: Calendar No. 564, H.R. 2186 and Calendar No. 572, S. 1719. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3680, to H.R. 2186 and amendment No. 3681 to S. 1719 be considered agreed to the appropriate bills, en bloc. I further ask consent that any committee amendments be agreed to as necessary, the bills be read the third time and passed, any title amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the measures appear at this point in the Record, and the preceding all occur en bloc.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee substitute 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.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 660, S. 2469.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I further ask unanimous consent that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Mack, 15 minutes; Senator Ashcroft in control of 1 hour between 11 a.m. and 12 noon; Senator Baucus in control of the time between 1 and 2 p.m.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until 11 a.m on Monday, October 5. I further ask that the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report to accompany S. 1719 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 599, H.R. 1481.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, foreign policy to Nebraskans and many Americans is not theory or some abstraction suspended between university classrooms, State Department corridors, or congressional hearing rooms. Foreign policy is the framework policy for America's interests in the world--trade and commerce, national security, financial markets, international economics, coalitions and alliances, narcotics policy, technology, immigration, all part of foreign policy. Foreign policy is America's future. It represents the complete and integrated policy that affects every dynamic of American life. Foreign policy connects all other policies. The world is interconnected. And the one overarching policy process America has to engage the world is foreign policy. President Kennedy spoke of new frontiers in his 1961 inaugural address. He spoke of the long-term challenges in the long twilight struggle against communism. Today, just as in 1961, and throughout history, mankind has been presented with new sets of challenges and new frontiers. These new challenges dominate after every global transformation. President Bush's new book deals directly with our present-day world transformation-- ``A World Transformed''--and we recall President Kennedy's words in that inaugural speech and apply them to the challenges of the 21st century. Historical Perspective Today, as in 1961, America stands again at a crossroads, at a unique but not unprecedented time in history. We have witnessed other great global shifts at several points in the 20th century. In the early days of Teddy Roosevelt, we saw America emerge as a global power. After World War I, America retreated into a mindless isolationism as economic depression and tyranny spread throughout the world. In 1941, World War II again thrust America into a leading role in the world and made us again a dominant power. The rise of the Soviet Union ushered in the cold war with its deadly arms race, nuclear brinkmanship, and policies of containment enforced by American soldiers. For over 40 years, the world was divided between two powerful enemies capable of destroying each other and the world. During this period, hope, opportunity, and freedom were held captive in many nations to authoritarian rule. Hundreds of millions of people across the globe were victims of political slavery. And then in 1989 the Soviet empire crumbled as freedom broke through the Iron Curtain. In the decade of the 20th century, we have seen great changes as the world settles out from the cold war. We stand at the edge of a great precipice. The world is changing around us, under us, above us. The rate of change is phenomenal, almost incalculable, for both good and evil. This change unnerves us, it challenges us, and will dominate us unless we shape the change and lead the force of change for good in the world. History provides valuable lessons, but it holds no clear blueprint or roadmap for the future. The rise of technology and communications has connected the world in every way. Our economics are intertwined. Our economies are interconnected. Today we live in a global community anchored by global economies. We also face new threats. Unlike the past, these threats do not come from a single country or a single enemy or a single state; they are borderless threats. The scourge of terrorism brings with it the deadly threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The trafficking of illegal drugs respects neither boundaries nor borders nor governments. The confluence of economic and national security concerns has created mutual threats and mutual self-interests among all nations of the world. What do we do? Where does the United States go from here? After great global shifts, there is always a time of uncertainty and instability. There is no clearly lit path to follow. Different times call for new solutions to new challenges, borderless challenges. One thing is clear, Mr. President. The United States of America must lead the world in the 21st century. We are the only dominant power in the world today, which provides us with immense opportunity but yet awesome responsibility. America must lead. America must not be intimidated by the unprecedented rate of change and uncertainty in the world. The diffusion of new geopolitical, economic, and military power that will develop over the next few years will form the world's power structure well into the next century. Of this we can be certain: America must engage this natural development, welcome it, and lead it. Timidity is not America's heritage. Boldness inspires. As George Bush said, as he accepted the Republican nomination for President in 1988, One issue overwhelms all others and that's the issue of peace. . . . One by one the unfree places fall, not to the force of arms but to the force of an idea: freedom works. . . . It's a watershed. It is no accident. It happened when we acted on the ancient knowledge that strength and clarity [strength and clarity] lead to peace; weakness and ambivalence lead to war. Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century America's objectives in this new century must be to help build security, hope, and opportunity. The United States and all nations will prosper in the 21st century if we lead a world of more freedom, stronger democracies, and unlimited trade and investment. Such a world is in our national interests. It is in the mutual self-interests of all peoples. The next 2 years are especially critical. They will help set precedents for much of the early part of the 21st century. Events will occur in the next 2 years that will change the shape of the world. The Future of America in the Next 2 Years and Beyond 2000 The future of America into the next century will be dominated by foreign policy. Because of our interconnected world, foreign policy is no longer just the practice of statecraft. The completeness of foreign policy will include a strong national defense first, and Senator McCain was very clear in his statement on that point. Second, the completeness of foreign policy will include a strong economy. And third, foreign policy will include clear, concise, comprehensive international policies--trade policies--all wrapped into a foreign policy. The two essential parts of a successful foreign policy in the 21st century will be, one, building consensus, building consensus both in the United States with the American people and internationally by working with coalitions of willing partners; and, two, projecting strong U.S. leadership in the world. Building Consensus through Alliances, Institutions and Coalitions In the next century, the United States must work to build international consensus through coalitions, alliances and institutions. The diffusion of power throughout the world will result in regional spheres of influence. In this structure and the challenges it presents, no one nation, no matter how powerful, can singlehandedly control the outcome. Borderless challenges will require borderless solutions. The United States will be most effective when we work with our allies and those willing to work with us. That does not mean weakening or compromising our national sovereignty. But we will be successful when we work with others to achieve our mutual goals. The coalition assembled by President Bush to drive Iraq from Kuwait was a good example of what we can accomplish when working in concert with those who share our aims-- all with mutual self-interests. As we approach the 21st century, America must evaluate its current partnerships and build new ones. We first need to review our current global commitments, alliances, coalitions and institutions. Many of these entities were created to address the challenges of a world that no longer exists. The nations that assembled at Bretton Woods in 1944 and created the IMF and World Bank faced a dramatically different economic system than we currently find today. The current debate that rages on and on and on over IMF funding and IMF reform is a timely example of this point. I agree, as does the IMF, that it needs reform, but what kind of reform? Not the reform of glancing blows and cheap political rhetoric and demagogic rhetoric for partisan gain. Today, we are struggling to define our world's financial and economic infrastructure and center of gravity, even while we swirl and swirl in its sea of changes. What should be the role of the G-7? Should it be revitalized? Is the G-7 still relevant, especially since the introduction of the European Monetary Union? The United Nations was formed during the beginning of the cold war and has gone far beyond its original charter and objectives. What should be the role of the United Nations in the next century? How do we continue to fund it and at what amount? Is the United Nations overburdened with too many assignments and expectations? What about missile defense for the United States of America? Is the 1972 ABM Treaty with a nation once described by President Reagan as being ``relegated to the dustbin of history'' still relevant? Does this treaty protect America from rogue nations with weapons of mass destruction? I don't think so. We need a debate on this issue. We need to take a clear-eyed, insightful and penetrating look at these institutions and relationships. We need to ask tough questions: Are they relevant to the challenges of the 21st century? Are their objectives still meaningful? Can they adapt to address new challenges? If we cannot answer these questions, then we need to change these institutions or create new ones to meet our current global economic and security challenges. One of the relevant new organizations for the 21st century is the World Trade Organization. Created to provide a structure for determining global trade practices and settling trade disputes, the WTO is a good example of an organization born to deal with the new challenges of the new century. Regional alliances will play a greater role in a world unshackled from the restraints of the cold war. They will not be isolated blocs, but regions of mutual interest within an interconnected world. These coalitions will and do exist because of mutual economic and security interests and can play an important role in expanding security, growth and opportunity in the world. They can help build, encourage and support new democracies and market economies and ensure hope for all peoples. These are critical building blocks for the 21st century. As Hugh Sidey once wrote: Hope energizes . . . doubt destroys. Hope is fundamental to the human condition. Without it, desperation takes hold. We know desperate men do desperate things. War, conflict and poverty are the enemies of all peoples. America must pull back the curtain of the status quo and take a long, thoughtful look at the needs, problems and cultures of developing countries. If we would have taken more care and invested more thought and time in Vietnam, we may not have blundered into that tragic mistake. The building of new regional alliances will require finding common denominators of interests within a region. For example, the fate of the nations in the Caspian Sea region are linked to each other. No nation will prosper in that area of the world until they all prosper. Much of Europe has already determined that it is in their mutual self-interest to link their monetary and currency policies through the creation of a single currency, the Euro. The conflict in the Middle East will not be resolved until there is regional peace. Economic prosperity also awaits that peace. Regional alliances left over from the cold war also need to be reviewed. We have done this to some extent with NATO when we added three new members. But we need to step back and take a closer look at NATO and at the role NATO should play in a new century. What will be NATO's purpose? How far should NATO expand? Should it expand? What are the consequences, costs and benefits of continued expansion of NATO? Any further expansion must be based on a clearly defined role for NATO. In light of the current mass destruction and war in Kosovo of which Senator McCain spoke, and Bosnia before it, one must ask this question: Is NATO relevant since it is a European security organization? The slaughter in Kosovo goes on. Yet the world looks on while NATO and the United Nations stand by issuing empty ultimatums to Milosevic. One could legitimately ask, What is the mission of NATO in the United Nations? To stop the butchery in Kosovo? Or after a while stop it? Or talk about stopping it? Or what? How long will NATO troops stay in Bosnia, especially in light of the recent elections in Serbska where Mrs. Plavsic, the candidate of the west, was defeated by the nationalist, Mr. Poplasen? We are going to need to build new coalitions to address today's borderless challenges. These need not be former alliances or new multilateral institutions. The United States needs to address today's challenges with those nations willing and able to join us. Again, America must lead. Prime among those borderless challenges is navigating a global economy. The current world financial crisis is presenting the best minds around the globe with unparalleled challenges. In some ways, we face a situation similar to when Christopher Columbus set sail from the coast of Spain in the 15th century. At that time, back onshore, the debate raged on whether the Earth was flat or round. The answers were unknown. Only by sailing the unpredictable seas and safely reaching the new world was Columbus able to deliver an answer. We are currently navigating the most turbulent of economic waters. This storm of financial instability has left many of the world's economies reeling. As of yet, the full brunt of this storm has not yet reached American shores, but it is out there, and we do not know what path it will take. Will it engulf Brazil and sweep up through the Americas? We do not know. We do know that America alone cannot stem this tide. We will only find a way to calm this storm by working with the other nations of the world and by rethinking and restructuring international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank. Free, fair, open trade will be the engine of growth in the new century, as it has been for the last half of the 20th century. All nations must work to break down barriers that inhibit global commerce and trade. Only then will all the world prosper. We in the United States must do far more to educate our people and our leaders on this issue. I have concluded, Mr. President--and you and I have worked on this issue for over 2 years--I have concluded that economic ignorance favoring the short term over the long term and concentrations of selfish political and economic power are the main reasons why free, fair and open trade is not universally supported in the United States or in this Congress. We must also stand up against protectionists at home and abroad who would take the world back to the disastrous days of the 1930s. We must not underestimate this threat, especially in light of last week's defeat of fast track in the House of Representatives. Economic isolation is impossible if for no other reason than the world Internet revolution. Terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose the greatest dangers and threats to global security in the 21st century. No nation will be immune and no one nation can fight these enemies alone. The trafficking of illegal drugs also threatens security and hope around the world. Those engaging in these despicable acts must be made the pariahs of the civilized world, stopped at every turn and dealt with harshly. But we need coalitions built on mutual self- interest to deal with these scourges. Projecting U.S. Leadership While we must work with the other nations of the world, there can be no leadership by committee. We currently have a vacuum of leadership in the world. History has taught us that the world is most dangerous and unpredictable when there are vacuums of global leadership. Leaders and nations lead through the force of confidence, character, honesty and trust. Our leadership must be based on credibility. The word of the United States should be the strongest of currencies in international relations. The nations of the world must trust our word and trust our commitment. We must remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt who once said, ``The one indispensable requisite for both a nation and an individual is character.'' This gives America the moral authority to lead, not the religious authority, not the holy authority, but the moral authority to lead. Our allies must respect us and our adversaries must fear us. Rhetoric without actions will result in failure and will encourage dictators and world instability. Today, again as Senator McCain mentioned minutes ago, Iraq and North Korea are directly and openly challenging the civilized world. The United States must have a clearly defined American foreign policy that is backed with the might of the U.S. military. Genuine leadership is more than crisis management. The ability to lead rests on others knowing where you stand. The guarantor of a nation's foreign policy is its national defense. A nation's word is only as strong as the military and the will that stands behind it. The United States must make strengthening our military one of its most immediate top priorities. Without a strong military, our threats are hollow. The Role Of Congress In Shaping Foreign Policy The role of Congress in helping shape American foreign policy must be greater as we move into the 21st century. America cannot lead the world without the support of the American people. Foreign policy and everything it encompasses must be relevant--must be relevant--to the daily lives of the American people. Responsibility for making foreign policy relevant ultimately rests with the President and his foreign policy team. However, the Congress must be part of the development of foreign policy--setting objectives and priorities, providing oversight and advice, allocating resources and helping set strategic direction. Congress should be a full partner with the President in foreign policy. The Congress cannot implement or execute foreign policy, nor should it try. That is the President's job. Foreign policy should be bipartisan. America's leaders need to speak with one voice to the world. We may debate the best course in this Congress, in committee, as we should, but there is no room for partisan politics and partisan gain in doing what is right in this Nation in the international arena. The Truman-Vandenberg relationship is a good model. Engaging the American people is just one aspect of a greater role for Congress in shaping foreign policy. To craft policies that will allow America to engage in and lead the world, Members of Congress will need to acknowledge and understand the completeness of foreign policy, the interconnects of foreign policy. What can Congress do? Over the next 2 years I propose--and I will be proposing this to the bipartisan leadership of this Congress--that the 106th Congress, which will assemble in January of next year, start holding oversight hearings on every facet of America's foreign policy. Congress should encourage new ideas and new solutions from our best foreign policy thinkers during these hearings. The Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate and the International Relations Committee in the House should coordinate at these hearings, under the direction of the bipartisan leadership of Congress, and review every multilateral relationship the United States has, every institution, alliance and coalition, review the mission, the organization, the relevancy, the cost, the benefits. In many instances, there should be joint hearings with committees, such as Armed Services and Foreign Relations, Banking and Foreign Relations, Finance and Foreign Relations, and other combinations of committees. The results of these hearings should be summarized and sent to the President and his foreign policy team, every Member of Congress, the President's Cabinet, and be made available to the American people. The results of these hearings will help formulate America's foreign policy for the next century. In the next 2 years, Congress must develop a comprehensive trade policy and pass much-needed trade reform legislation. Our trade policy needs an overhaul to meet the challenges of a global economy, especially our sanctions policy. Sanctions are a legitimate foreign policy tool but they are not a substitute for foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions do not work in an interconnected world. The imposition of sanctions fails to take into account the long-term consequences for America and ties the President's hands, giving him no flexibility to react to the unique international situations which may require delicate diplomacy, diplomatic maneuvering, or decisive, tough, strong action. Approving fast-track authority should be part of this trade package. Congress should make maximum use of blue-ribbon commissions like the Rumsfeld Commission on missile defense and the Kassebaum-Baker Commission on gender-integrated training in our Armed Forces. America wastes a tremendous amount of talent and experience when we do not use our former highly respected members of Government and Congress to help us solve our complicated and interconnected challenges and problems. This will all stimulate and frame a national debate on critically important issues that will help inform and educate America on the great challenges, the important, the vital challenges of our time. Foreign relations--and all that it encompasses--must not be held hostage to politics or partisan gain. It will not work any other way in this interconnected world of short-term and long-term danger. Conclusion When history records the world, and this time in the world, and the world's move from the 20th to the 21st century, will it show that America and the world squandered a most precious opportunity and unique time in the history of man? Will it record an era of ``inter-cold war'' after 40 years of cold war? A time of world anarchy and growing disorder? A period when the world, in fact, went backwards and allowed the progress of the last 50 years to erode? Will it lament opportunities not taken, and are thus forever lost? The answers will be determined by the role the United States plays in the world during the next few years. We do have choices. But the choices we make first must be based on the values and the ideals of a just nation. Our foreign policy must be in our national interest-- clearly defined, driven by priorities, objectives, and implemented with focused strategies. A random conduct of foreign policy will not do. The President and the Congress must forge a strong bipartisan partnership underpinned by a strong congressional bipartisan effort. This Congress must use the next 2 years to help prepare America and the world for this new dynamic competitive center. America must be nimble in putting together a coalition of countries allied around the common interests of civilized people. We must be smart in how we multiply our power and interest around the world. The United States must be careful not to overload multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the IMF. They are equipped to do only so much. When their circuits are overloaded, they will fail, and fail dramatically, thus causing great uncertainty, leaving deep and wide vacuums of confidence in the world. The next 2 years are going to be difficult years for the United States. They may be dangerous years, as well. The President of the United States is wounded. He is, maybe, fatally wound. This will affect his international standing and leadership. This is of his own doing. America must pull together to present to the world a unified nation with respect to our global leadership responsibilities. We must do this so that we will continue to gain the confidence of the world that gives us the credibility to continue to lead the world. The Congress will be called upon for greater international leadership. It must be prepared for this role. For all our flaws and imperfections, the world looks to America for leadership because the world trusts us because of our people. Americans are innately fair and decent people with a wonderful abundance of common sense. Our system of government allows the fairness and decency of the American culture to dominate all aspects of our way of life. It allows the best of our people and our culture to soar high. Yes, we are sometimes misguided, heavy-handed and even arrogant. But we have this intangible ``self-correction'' process built deep into our national psyche. We can and often do ``self-correct''--both personally and nationally. Which the world sees, trusts, and admires. It is within our grasp to help shape a world that has the potential to do more good for more people than man has ever known. This is an awesome responsibility but one that America is up to if America does what it always does best--work together. At the end, when the curtain comes down, and we are held accountable, all that really matters is what this century's greatest leader, Winston Churchill, once said: What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes, and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone? I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to commend my friend and distinguished colleague from Arizona for his comments. He is on target. I wish to associate myself with those comments and pick up where Senator McCain left off, addressing some of the same issues but from a different perspective, although it is part of the total perspective, and that is foreign policy.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield myself such time that I will need to complete my statement. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend, Senator Kyl. Six months ago this body spoke very clearly and strongly on IMF. We voted 84-16 to approve a strong IMF package that has two parts: Strong and achievable IMF reforms and the full $17.9 billion funding for America's IMF contribution. The IMF reform and funding language in the foreign operations bill today is identical to the reform package of the Senate-passed bill 6 months ago. We should not now start second-guessing ourselves and undoing what we have done. We should stand by the solid reforms and the funding package that won 84 votes in March. The Kyl amendment would replace that carefully crafted language with a different and untested mechanism for reform, a mechanism that we considered but abandoned on the Senate floor early in our negotiation 6 months ago. I might add, Mr. President, this was after very long and detailed consultations with the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, the Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin, and many others. Along with Senator McConnell, Appropriations Chairman Stevens, Senator Gramm, Senator Biden and others, I helped craft the reforms that passed the Senate. We negotiated the reforms carefully, with the involvement of many Senators. It took weeks, many weeks. We worked word by word, line by line to present something to this body that was achievable, workable. The package we passed in March and includes meaningful IMF reforms that are also achievable. We recognize that America alone cannot shape the world economy. So we required in our reform language the G-7 countries to come together to help reform the IMF. These reforms consist of the following: Reforms so IMF will require recipient countries to live up to their international trade obligations; reform so IMF will require recipient countries to eliminate crony capitalism and clean up corruption; reforms that will improve transparency of IMF operations, and to encourage bankruptcy law reforms in recipient countries. Mr. President, these are not funny reforms. These are not patsy, weak reforms. The new IMF funding will go forward, but not until the Treasury Department succeeds in getting these reforms accomplished at the IMF. This is written into the reform legislation. These reforms are real and they will make a real difference at the IMF. It would be absolutely irresponsible for Congress to shrug off the IMF as economies around the globe falter. We should not go backwards. America must continue to lead. The Senate must continue to lead. Global events, such as we have talked about today, yesterday, and will continue to talk about, have demonstrated even more forcefully the need for the U.S. to support the IMF. Mr. President, the IMF is not perfect. It is not without flaws. It needs reform; indeed it needs reform. But, my goodness, at a time when we have economic chaos around the globe, we need many confidence builders, and the IMF institution in itself will not change this, but it will help. If we didn't have an IMF, what would we have? Would the United States want to step up to this alone? Would France or Germany? The second largest economy in the world--Japan--is in economic chaos, with no banking structure. We need some type of a mechanism to help address these issues. Asia was burning when the Senate acted 6 months ago. Now that fire has engulfed Russia and is spreading to Latin America. Our own economy is feeling this heat. Mr. President, markets respond to confidence. Markets respond to confidence. Our debates today about IMF and other economic issues are not just about numbers, or about the arcane comparisons of one reform versus another reform. No, these debates are real and they are about sending a signal around the world. Is America engaged? Will we continue to lead? Or will America pull back? America's interests require us to help shore up confidence around the world. This debate is about America's interests. This is not esoteric. This is about America's interests, America's economic stability and global stability. The U.S. suffered a record trade deficit in May, the fourth consecutive month. Exports hit their lowest point in 15 months. Over the first 5 months of this year, America's trade deficit increased nearly 40 percent from the same period last year. Why is that? Many parts of America's economy are already feeling the pain of the spreading Asian ``flu.'' Wall Street is on a roller coaster ride. The farm economy is suffering, largely due to the loss of overseas markets. Corn and soybean exports are down more than 50 percent from 2 years ago. Wheat exports are down more than 30 percent. These economic problems will not be limited to American farmers and ranchers, and not even to America's investors. They will ripple through the economies of the Midwest and the rest of this Nation. Events around the world will continue to affect our economy here at home and global stability. When you have global instability, Mr. President, it goes far beyond economic instability. Global instability affects everything--our national defense, our interests and our economy. The situation in Japan is very dangerous. Many economies in Asia are clinging to Japan for support. Japan was a direct contributor to the financial package to Russia. I don't think I need to spell out to colleagues the disastrous effect of a significant downturn in the Japanese economy. Let me point out a headline from today's Washington Times: ``Tokyo's Troubles Overshadow Russia's: With Bad Economic Decisions, Japan Could Start a Worldwide Recession.'' This is not the time to lose our perspective and diddle and dawdle-- reform versus technicality and reform versus technicality. This is the time for America to do the right thing, to step up and lead the world, help the IMF and insert the reforms that we passed by 84 votes last March. I want to close, Mr. President, by quoting the last paragraph of a letter from the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin, which he sent to the congressional leadership yesterday. He talks about the IMF. He talks about how broadly the IMF plays a role across the global economic scene: More broadly, a fully equipped IMF is in the economic interest of our important trading partners throughout the world. While we agree that the IMF needs reform, and are committed to continuing our strong efforts to achieve meaningful change, it remains an effective and indispensable tool in the management of the international economy. I respectfully urge you and your colleagues to act with the utmost dispatch to pass this legislation. Mr. President, the Senate should stand by the leadership that we provided on this issue in March. I respectfully suggest that my colleagues look at this Kyl amendment and defeat this Kyl amendment. Mr. President, I end by saying that when the time on the debate on this issue expires, I intend to make a motion to table the Kyl amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, who controls time on the Kyl amendment?

Mr. HAGEL. We have 9 minutes. I would be very happy to yield time. How much time?

Mr. HAGEL. All right. Thank you. I yield the distinguished Senator from Delaware 4 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota 1\1/ 2\ minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. I move to table the Kyl amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAGEL. I ask that the remainder of my time be allotted to the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Kansas 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska.