Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to be one of many to pay tribute to our distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, I, like all of Senator Thurmond's colleagues, feel it is a privilege to serve with the distinguished Senator, the man whom the Almanac of American Politics calls ``the most enduring figure in American politics.'' As you and I both know, Mr. President, because you and I are both new Members of this body, we are quickly learning what it means to serve in the U.S. Senate. So it is with genuine respect that I reflect upon Strom Thurmond's many, many, many years of service here in this body, the votes he has cast, the issues he has debated and the people he has known, and the history that Senator Thurmond has helped shape. Strom Thurmond was serving America for more than a decade before, you, Mr. President, were born, or before I was born. He landed at Normandy on D-Day. Many people do not know that Senator Thurmond was a legitimate hero of World War II. He was jumping out of planes not at the age of 21, but far beyond those tender young ages. He landed at Normandy on D-day. He was a State legislator, a Governor, and a candidate for President of the United States, all before he came to the U.S. Senate. However, it has been his service in the U.S. Senate that has made Strom Thurmond's boldest and most enduring mark, service that began when I was in grade school in the sand hills of Nebraska. Strom Thurmond came to this body when there were only 48 stars on the American flag. He has served with nine Presidents of both political parties, and his leadership has spanned five decades with tremendous change in American culture, society, and government. Strom Thurmond is part of American history. This freshman, 6-month-old, humble Senator from Nebraska, wishes to thank Senator Thurmond for the opportunity to learn from his experiences and his leadership. I wish to add my commendation to Senator Thurmond for his dedication, his commitment to our Nation. I admire the strong example he has set for all of us, especially our young people. Mr. President, in a day when we do not have enough strong role models in this country, Senator Thurmond is one. He is an example of a life well lived. He is a true American role model, an American hero. Senator Thurmond is the highest ranking 95-year-old in the Nation, as far as I know, Mr. President. My only request is that I hope that during my time in the Senate I may conduct myself in such a way that Senator Thurmond will remember me as his colleague and friend long after I have departed this body and Senator Thurmond is still presiding. Mr. President, I thank you for your time. I once again commend my colleague and my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a most distinguished American. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for Senate Concurrent Resolution 27. I want to begin by applauding the dedication of the Budget chairman and all those who have worked so diligently over the last few months to craft a budget that makes some sense and for bringing this balanced budget to the floor. I want to speak in more global terms about this budget issue. I have not been around here very long. It seems to me that if we continue this ``what if'' theory and ``one more amendment'' theory to budgeting, we will never get there. The fact is, at least in this humble freshman Senator's opinion, that the real challenge to this country over the next few years, well into the next century, is like this: It is the prioritization of our resources. If we are going to do that, then we are going to have to have some framework that makes some sense, that disciplines this Congress, disciplines this body. We have been an undisciplined Congress for 30 years, and what Chairman Domenici and the President and the leadership on the Democratic and Republican sides in the House and the Senate, and all those who have been part of this process have brought to this floor is something that makes sense. This is a historic budget. We have not been able to craft this kind of a budget for more than 30 years. We should not forget this point as we debate this budget. Is this a perfect budget? No. I think it is a good budget. Over the years, Mr. President, like many of my colleagues and most Americans, I was running my own business and paying taxes. Like most Americans, I was doubting whether this Congress had the will and the discipline to ever balance the budget. Now we have an opportunity to do what many thought would never happen, and that is to pass a balanced budget. What also makes this budget significant is it cuts taxes. I, like many of my colleagues, know how difficult it was to craft such a budget. I also know, like in my campaign last year and the campaigns of others, that people said you can't cut taxes, you can't cut spending and balance the budget. Well, we can. That is what this is about. Mr. President, there is a reason that more Americans believe in Santa Claus than believe we can actually balance the budget. We are at a crossroads in governance. We are at a crossroads in leadership. If we allow the further erosion of confidence of the American public in this body, this Congress, trust and confidence to do the right thing, to balance the budget, then it may be some time in getting it back. I don't doubt the sincerity of my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Kennedy, and others. I applaud what they are doing. But if we continue to proceed with amendment after amendment after amendment, I don't know what we would do at the end of the day. These are issues that should be debated in the appropriate forums. If we are not careful, we will undo a very delicate balance in coming to this budget agreement. I will support this budget, but I will not support any of the amendments that are being offered. This budget is too important to our Nation and the future of our children to place it at risk with various amendments, regardless of how well-intentioned. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendments offered today and to support this balanced budget that so many people have worked so hard to craft and make work. This does include tax relief, spending cuts, and balancing the budget, putting this country on a responsible fiscal plane over the next few years. Until we bring some stability to our financial responsibilities and our fiscal responsibilities starting right here, then we will pay consequences for that. I urge my colleagues to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 27. I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL. Five minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of the construction and dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, also known as ``The Wall.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my distinguished colleague from Nebraska, my senior Senator, Bob Kerrey, who, incidentally, is the only Member of this body who was a recipient of the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam. I also am joined by the other Vietnam combat veterans who serve in this body. In all, 75 Senators have joined in cosponsoring this resolution. The creation of this memorial marked the beginning of a healing process for the Nation and for veterans divided by the war. I was proud to have spoken at the 1982 groundbreaking for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as did two of my colleagues, Senator Robb, who then was Governor of Virginia, and Senator John Warner. I keep in my Senate office, Mr. President, a shovel I used during the groundbreaking ceremony 15 years ago to remind me of that day. While the debate over our involvement in Vietnam and the conduct of the war will continue for years to come, the wall has united Americans in honoring those who served. It honors warriors, not the war. The Vietnam wall stands as a stirring reminder that memorials are built not to honor or glorify war. There is no glory in a war, only suffering. Memorials are built to honor the commitment and the sacrifice that men and women give to their country because they are willing to risk their lives in defense of freedom. As we commemorate the 15th anniversary of the groundbreaking for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, it is important that we remember those brave men and brave women who fought and died for liberties we take for granted, and it is important we remember their families who also sacrificed for this Nation. Recently I was joined in a ceremony to mark the wall's 15th anniversary by my friends and colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, John McCain of Arizona, Max Cleland of Georgia, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Chuck Robb of Virginia. We come from different States and different parties, but despite our differences, we six U.S. Senators have a common background. We are all Vietnam combat veterans. We attended the ceremony on behalf of every man and woman who served in Vietnam, every man and woman who gave their life in Vietnam, every Vietnam veteran who is still missing in that far away land, and every family in this country who sacrificed to keep this Nation strong. We marked the anniversary of this groundbreaking in order to remind us all that the liberties we cherish do not come without great sacrifice. One needs only to run a hand over the rough names inscribed in the smooth glossy surface of the wall to realize that freedom is not free. As we laid a wreath in honor of the 58,202 men and women whose lives are memorialized by the names, each of us realized we could easily have been present only in the memories of those who survived. We, too, could have been listed on the wall. We also remembered and honored the more than 2,000 Americans still missing in action from this war. Mr. President, this morning I noted that our new Ambassador to Vietnam, Ambassador Pete Petersen, a Nebraska native, held as a POW in Vietnam for more than 6 years, received the remains of two of our MIA's yesterday in Vietnam. Each year, more than 3 million people visit the Vietnam Memorial, making it the most visited monument in Washington. Many visitors are so moved they leave flowers, letters, pictures, and other mementoes to their fallen comrades, parents, relatives, friends, children, and loved ones. Next weekend, Memorial Day weekend, the traveling Vietnam memorial will come to Omaha, NE. It is a half-scale replica of the wall that stands here in Washington. It has visited cities and States across America so Americans who may never visit the Nation's Capital can experience the healing power of the Vietnam wall. The resolution before the Senate today is an important statement by the Senate to mark the 15th year of the wall and all that wall has meant to so many. I am proud to be a sponsor and am grateful for my colleagues' support. Mr. President, I yield time to my distinguished colleague, friend, and fellow Vietnam veteran, Senator Bob Kerrey.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 87, submitted by myself, along with my colleague Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and others.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Nebraska for those inspirational words, and I think words that are focused exactly on the heart of who we are as a people, who we have always been, and hopefully who we will always be.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I have two final comments to make regarding this resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. First, the recognition of the vision, the heart, the soul, and the leadership behind it, a remarkable man, Jan Scruggs. It was Jan Scruggs who many, many years ago came home one night after a movie, sat down with his wife, and said, ``We are going to do something to recognize those who served in the Vietnam.'' It was a great dream, an impossible dream. One of the collaborators with Jan Scruggs was one of our colleagues, Senator John Warner. Without Senator John Warner's leadership, and without his force, and without Jan Scruggs' vision and leadership and love, this Wall would never have been built. It is very appropriate to recognize Jan Scruggs and Senator John Warner because those two great Americans led this effort and have given us a magnificent monument and memorial. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution, Senate Resolution 87, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I want to compliment my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for introducing this important piece of legislation. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to small businessowners across America. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. The Safety and Health Advancement Act is a commonsense approach to reining in an overreaching Federal agency. I worked in Congress when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] was created in the 1970's. Many people today would find it hard to believe that OSHA was created to assist business--especially small businesses. In its original intent, OSHA existed not just to help enforce workplace safety laws, but to help small businessowners understand those laws and advise them on how to comply. What OSHA has grown into is an agency of confrontation and intimidation. The mere mention of OSHA strikes fear in the hearts of small businessowners everywhere. The father of one of my staff members owns small heating and air- conditioning business in Nebraska. He's a good employer. He runs a safe workplace and treats his employees fairly. But he faces the constant threat that an unannounced visit by OSHA could shut him down because he doesn't have the resources to appeal the high fines frequently handed out by OSHA. I hear stories like this from small businessowners throughout Nebraska. Businesses that are fined tens of thousands of dollars for a minor infraction of a regulation they frequently did not even know existed. They are forced to close their doors and lay off their employees because they can't afford to fight the fines that come through arbitrary process. Mr. President, the safety of our workplaces must continue to be a top priority. Where there are those violating the law and creating unsafe working conditions, we should go after them and persecute to the fullest extent of the law. Those are the individuals OSHA should be going after. But the Government should not be killing jobs by intimidating honest, hardworking small businessowners. We need to focus on the real problems in the workplace. The Safety and Health Advancement Act would help address this problem. It gives OSHA the flexibility to prioritize its resources in order to target the worst offenders. It encourages voluntary compliance by rewarding employers who use third-party consultants. It holds employees responsible for their misconduct at a site that is in compliance with OSHA regulations. This bill returns OSHA to its original intent and expands its consultative services. Under this legislation, OSHA would actually work hand in hand with small businessowners to create safe workplaces, not merely hand down punitive fines. It moves OSHA away from confrontation and back toward cooperation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Safety and Health Advancement Act. Not only will this bill help make America's workplaces safer, it will go a long way in freeing America's small businessowners from the heavy burdens of Government regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lou Ann Linehan and Deb Fiddelke be permitted privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I now ask unanimous consent at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 20, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1122, and there be 3 hours and 10 minutes of debate to be equally divided between Senators Santorum and Boxer or their designees, and that the vote occur on passage of H.R. 1122 at 2:15 on Tuesday, and that paragraph 4 of rule 12 be waived.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to H.R. 1122 other than a technical amendment to be offered by Senator Santorum regarding physicians' conduct, and there be 10 minutes debate on the amendment, and following the use or yielding back of that time on the amendment, the amendment be considered agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and following the adoption of the amendment the bill be read for the third time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, following morning business the Senate will hopefully resume consideration of H.R. 1122, the partial-birth abortion ban bill. It is still hoped that an agreement will be reached shortly to conduct a vote on final passage of H.R. 1122 early this afternoon. In addition, I remind all Senators, from 12:30 to 2:15, the Senate will recess for weekly policy luncheons. This afternoon it is hoped we will begin consideration of the budget resolution. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout the day in this session of the Senate. As previously announced, Members who intend to offer amendments to that resolution should be prepared to offer those amendments during today's session. Also it is hoped that the two leaders will be able to reach an agreement on yielding back much of the statutory time limitation for the budget resolution, leaving 15 hours of debate on the resolution in order. As always, all Members will be notified accordingly as any votes are ordered with respect to any of this legislation. I thank all Members for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I want to compliment my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for introducing this important piece of legislation. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to small businessowners across America. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. The Safety and Health Advancement Act is a commonsense approach to reining in an overreaching Federal agency. I worked in Congress when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] was created in the 1970's. Many people today would find it hard to believe that OSHA was created to assist business--especially small businesses. In its original intent, OSHA existed not just to help enforce workplace safety laws, but to help small businessowners understand those laws and advise them on how to comply. What OSHA has grown into is an agency of confrontation and intimidation. The mere mention of OSHA strikes fear in the hearts of small businessowners everywhere. The father of one of my staff members owns small heating and air- conditioning business in Nebraska. He's a good employer. He runs a safe workplace and treats his employees fairly. But he faces the constant threat that an unannounced visit by OSHA could shut him down because he doesn't have the resources to appeal the high fines frequently handed out by OSHA. I hear stories like this from small businessowners throughout Nebraska. Businesses that are fined tens of thousands of dollars for a minor infraction of a regulation they frequently did not even know existed. They are forced to close their doors and lay off their employees because they can't afford to fight the fines that come through arbitrary process. Mr. President, the safety of our workplaces must continue to be a top priority. Where there are those violating the law and creating unsafe working conditions, we should go after them and persecute to the fullest extent of the law. Those are the individuals OSHA should be going after. But the Government should not be killing jobs by intimidating honest, hardworking small businessowners. We need to focus on the real problems in the workplace. The Safety and Health Advancement Act would help address this problem. It gives OSHA the flexibility to prioritize its resources in order to target the worst offenders. It encourages voluntary compliance by rewarding employers who use third-party consultants. It holds employees responsible for their misconduct at a site that is in compliance with OSHA regulations. This bill returns OSHA to its original intent and expands its consultative services. Under this legislation, OSHA would actually work hand in hand with small businessowners to create safe workplaces, not merely hand down punitive fines. It moves OSHA away from confrontation and back toward cooperation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Safety and Health Advancement Act. Not only will this bill help make America's workplaces safer, it will go a long way in freeing America's small businessowners from the heavy burdens of Government regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my full support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his leadership on this issue. This debate, of course, is about abortion, which I strongly oppose. But it is about much more than that. It is about doing what is right. It is about values. And it is about a civilized society standing against a heinous procedure that is used to kill a mostly born child--a procedure that, as even some advocates of abortion rights have conceded, comes dangerously close to murder. The debate about abortion raged in America long before I began my service in the Senate. It will continue long after the Senate votes on this bill to ban one specific abortion procedure. It will continue until America comes to grips with the moral crisis that makes abortion just another sign of the times. This debate itself may rise and fall, but my view on this matter is straightforward--I believe America should ban partial-birth abortion because it is wrong. For too long, our society has drifted too far from that simple conclusion. In this body--as in this country--we are adept at weighing and debating the pros and cons. We know how to balance competing interests. We know how to strike compromises. But do we think often enough about the consequences of our actions? I fear we have strayed from seeking straightforward answers to tough questions. We have too often strayed from making public policy based solely on what is right. The vote we are about to cast is about banning a specific method of abortion. But the debate in which we are engaged is about larger questions. Have we become coarsened by a society that cheapens life--from our failure to stop violence in our streets to our unwillingness to keep violence from our television screens? Have we come to accept what should never be acceptable--a society where drug use is termed recreational, and irresponsible behavior is just a sign of the times? Have we lost the basis of a civil society? Are we no longer willing to stand up and say enough is enough? Mr. President, I came to this Senate with a firm belief that we can make a real difference for America's future. I have no doubt we can put our financial books in order--by cutting spending, cutting taxes, cutting regulations, and balancing the budget. But can we put our values in order? If we, as leaders, fail to do what is right and fail to stop what is wrong, will we really have left a better America for our children and our grandchildren? I think not. For two centuries, America has rested on a value system anchored by personal responsibility. Our society has always been underpinned by respect for others, respect for self, faith in God and family, and helping those in need. We have always held these values important-- worth struggling for and worth fighting for. People of good character stood up for these values in their own lives, and in their communities. They expected their leaders to stand up for them as well. Mr. President, I have every confidence that this body will vote to outlaw this gruesome procedure because the goodness of our people will demand it. Just as families across America wake up every day and try to do the right thing, so they are expecting their leaders to do the same. The vote we will cast on this issue is important. It goes to the heart of who we are as a people and who we want to be as a Nation. I hope we will all take pause, in this body and throughout America, to reflect on what type of society we have become and what type of society we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this CFE Flank Treaty today. It is good for the security of the United States and the security of our NATO allies. This treaty modifies the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. This treaty was reached in 1990 before the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The modifications in CFE flank restrictions contained in this treaty are reasonable, and we all should support them. Under Chairman Helms' guidance, the Foreign Relations Committee added a number of important conditions to this treaty. These conditions clarify parts of the treaty that could be construed as granting special rights to Russia to intimidate its neighbors, but most importantly are the clarifications that nothing in the CFE Flank Treaty grants to Russia any right to continue its current violations of the sovereignty of several neighboring states. I am pleased that these clarifications were fully bipartisan conditions that received the support of our distinguished Foreign Relations ranking member, Senator Biden. There is, however, one remaining condition that caused some controversy. This is condition 9, which requires the President to submit to the Senate for ratification another treaty modification, the ABM multilateralization treaty. This is not a question of support or opposition to the ABM Treaty. This is purely a matter of the prerogative of the Senate, of whether or not to adhere to the clear intent of the Constitution of this country. During negotiations over the Chemical Weapons Convention, Senator Helms and Majority Leader Lott succeeded in convincing the President to submit to the Senate two out of three pending treaty modifications that the President had intended to implement as executive agreements. One of those treaty modifications, the CFE Flank Treaty now before us today, and another, the ABM Demarcation Treaty, is before the Foreign Relations Committee where it will receive serious consideration. Only one treaty modification has yet to be submitted to the Senate, the ABM multilateralization treaty agreed to in Helsinki by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin. It is right to require that treaty to be submitted as well. Again, this issue is merely the constitutional obligation of each of us in this body to give our advice and consent on the ratification of treaties, not whether this treaty modification is good or bad. I again congratulate Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, and the distinguished majority leader. I am proud of the leadership they have shown on this treaty and on the constitutional prerogatives of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield my time. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Private Property Fairness Act of 1997. 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. 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. I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, intends to introduce an omnibus private property rights bill, and I look forward to working with him. 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 into the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This means, for example, that Nebraskans can have their case heard in a Nebraska courthouse; they won't have to travel to Washington, DC, at their own expense 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. Then he met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1987, the long arm of the Federal bureaucracy reached onto Mr. Jeffrey's property 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--10 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 today to introduce the Private Property Fairness Act of 1997. 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. 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. I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, intends to introduce an omnibus private property rights bill, and I look forward to working with him. 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 into the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This means, for example, that Nebraskans can have their case heard in a Nebraska courthouse; they won't have to travel to Washington, DC, at their own expense 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. Then he met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1987, the long arm of the Federal bureaucracy reached onto Mr. Jeffrey's property 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--10 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 thank you. Mr. President, it was 30 years ago this week that I joined the U.S. Army. It was 29 years ago this week, with my brother Tom, that I was first wounded in Vietnam. This is an important week of reflection for me as we take up the final hours of debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I rise this morning to say that I will vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention. America's national security interests are better served with this treaty than without it. Our men and women in uniform are better served with this treaty than without it. There are few Senators who have put as much time in on this issue than I have, studying this treaty over the past few weeks. As a freshman Senator, I began with very limited knowledge about this convention. I had to understand it totally before I could make an intelligent vote on the treaty. This treaty is much improved from the form in which it was first submitted to the Senate. I would have voted against this treaty in its original form. But as the Framers of our Constitution intended, the Senate has worked its will and has substantially strengthened the final agreement. Because of the strong leadership and negotiation, in my judgment, the balance has tipped strongly in favor of ratification of this convention. The people of this country should recognize the important roles that Majority Leader Lott, Chairman Helms, and Senators Biden, Lugar, and Kyl played in this debate. They allowed the Senate the opportunity to listen, to learn, and to understand this treaty, to debate this treaty, and they have brought a more informed Senate together to vote on this treaty as we will throughout the day. That is what this body, the Senate, should be about, debating important issues that have consequences for all Americans. This convention will have consequences for all peoples around the globe. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Lott, Senator Biden, the administration, and others, the Senate made 28 substantial changes to the original treaty to address major problems in the treaty, several of which were key to improving it, in my opinion. The majority leader held a news conference 45 minutes ago and read a letter from the President-- as far as I know, unprecedented in arms control conventions--laying out some of the concerns that this President has and this body has about issues in this convention. I think that, too, further strengthens this treaty. We fully protected the constitutional rights of our businesses against unlawful searches and seizures by ensuring that international inspection teams must obtain a search warrant before entering any American facility. This means no challenge inspection will occur unless a U.S. Federal judge finds probable cause to believe a violation of law has occurred at that facility. The rights guaranteed under our Constitution will continue to reign supreme. We ensured that the American military will be able to use nondeadly riot control agents, such as tear gas. As military operations become increasingly complex and involve more areas with civilian populations, it is imperative that our military commanders have the maximum flexibility to employ a range of force, including nondeadly force. We made clear that our existing national and international export controls will remain in place. The United States simply will not transfer chemical technology in any manner that would weaken our existing controls or military defense capabilities, or would tend to allow dangerous chemical technology to fall into the hands of pariah regimes. We put in place safeguards to ensure that American intelligence data is protected whenever it is shared with the international organization that will oversee operations of the convention. We also prohibited chemical samples taken at American laboratories from being transferred off American soil--an important provision that helps protect proprietary and security information. And, we took steps to ensure that the new international organization set up to monitor and enforce the convention will not become an ill- managed bureaucracy that burdens the American taxpayer. We put a cap on the American contribution to that organization, and we required the organization to establish and maintain an independent inspector general. I should like to close with this. As I have referenced, there are a number of improvements that have been made to this treaty. We have five more proposed conditions that remain in disagreement that we will vote on yet today. I will vote to strike at least four of those conditions because they would effectively prevent American participation in the convention and would undermine the very purpose of this treaty. This treaty, however, is no magic instrument that will guarantee Americans and our troops safety from chemical attack. No treaty can substitute for unwavering American strength, determination, vigilance, and leadership. But this treaty is one more tool we can use to make chemical attacks less likely. It does improve our eyes. With or without this treaty, the United States years ago decided never again to use chemical weapons and is committed by law to completely destroy our stockpile of chemical weapons by early in the next century. That decision was made during the Reagan administration and was reaffirmed by the Bush administration. The important question now is, what can we do to give ourselves more leverage to press other countries to do the same? It is a very important question. Ratifying this treaty is not the end of our efforts to make chemical attacks on Americans less likely. To the contrary, it is only the beginning. As President Reagan's top arms control negotiator, Ronald Lehman, said last week before our Foreign Relations Committee: Ratification is essential to American leadership against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but ratification alone is not enough. Strong follow-up involving all branches of Government will be vital. We must now use the tools of this treaty effectively. The treaty tools give us, I believe, the most effective way to deal with the proliferation of chemical weapons. We must keep America strong. We must keep America vigilant. The Senate has an important and ongoing role to play in making sure this treaty is implemented properly, and I am committed as a Senator to making that happen. For me, this has never been a political issue, Mr. President. This vote is not about Republicans. It is not about Democrats. It is not about conservatives, not about liberals. It is not about Bill Clinton. It is not about Trent Lott. This vote is about America's national security interests. It is about our young men and women in uniform all over the world who may someday face an adversary with chemical weapons. It is about each Senator doing what he or she thinks is in the best interests of our country. For those reasons, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote for ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I yield my time. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Yes.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. More than 95 percent of farmers and ranchers are self- employed and generally pay the full cost of their insurance coverage themselves. Our bill makes a real difference to them as well. I am involved in this issue because it is vitally important to my home State of Nebraska. There are 98,000 self-employed people in Nebraska, of whom more than 10,000 are uninsured. These are real numbers. These are real people. This legislation can make a real difference for them--making their health insurance more affordable and their businesses more profitable. Every State in America has hardworking, self-employed men and women who need the tax relief and health care assistance this bill offers. I hope my colleagues will support this important effort. Exhibit 1 Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation, Lincoln, NE, April 10, 1997. Hon. Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chuck: On behalf of Nebraska's largest farm organization, I am writing to offer Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation's strong support for your legislation that would provide a 100 percent tax deduction of health insurance premiums for the self-employed. Deductibility of health insurance premium costs for self- employed individuals has been a long standing goal of Farm Bureau. More than 95 percent of farmers and ranchers are self-employed and generally pay the full cost of their insurance coverage themselves. In addition, many farm families are forced into a situation where a spouse must get an off-farm job primarily to obtain more affordable health insurance coverage for their family. The cost of self-employed health insurance, when not purchased as part of a group, can be significant and cause financial hardships for some individuals and farm families. In many cases, farmers and ranchers pay more than $3,000 to $5,000 annually for health insurance. Farmers and ranchers are looking at many avenues to cut skyrocketing health insurance premiums. More farmers have moved to higher deductible policies--quite often in the $2,500 to $5,000 range. In other cases, farmers are opting to go without health insurance altogether. As you know, current federal tax law allows self-employed people to deduct 30 percent of the cost of their health insurance premiums. That will increase to 80 percent by the year 2006. Current federal tax law also allows corporations to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premium costs. Members of Nebraska Farm Bureau believe that fairness and equity dictate that Nebraska's self-employed individuals receive the same tax treatment as other employees and employers. Nebraska Farm Bureau appreciates your work on the introduction of this legislation and we wholeheartedly offer our support to this effort. Respectively, Bryce P. Neidig, President.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to introduce legislation that will cut taxes and improve access to health insurance for millions of small business owners and farmers across America. Our legislation--the Health Insurance Tax Equity for Self-Employed Act--is a bill about fairness. Under current law, corporations can deduct from their income tax the full amount of money spent on health care for their employees. But the 10\1/2\ million self-employed men and women in America cannot fully deduct what they spend on their own health care. They can deduct a percentage--which is now 40 percent and will increase to 80 percent by 2006--but they cannot deduct the entire cost. Our bill would immediately eliminate this disadvantage--effective January 1, 1997--and put the self-employed on the same footing with their incorporated competitors. And it would make health insurance more affordable for the 3 million uninsured Americans who are self-employed. This bill will make a real difference to real people. The high cost of health insurance was the No. 1 problem that small businesses cited in a recent comprehensive study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB]. Small business owners often pay 30 percent more for the cost of their health insurance than do larger companies--they pay more, but they can deduct less. Our bill will make health insurance more affordable for small business owners. That is why it has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. It also is strongly supported by the National Farm Bureau and by the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation. Both have sent me letters endorsing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these be submitted for the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we are engaged in an important debate--a debate about privacy, liberty, and the role of Government in our lives. The American people want less Government, less regulation and less taxes. They want less hassle and more respect from their Government. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Taxpayer Privacy Protection Act, which was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell. The Senate will vote on this important legislation later today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. As the April 15 income tax deadline approaches each year, Americans rush to file their returns while wading through a paper storm of tax forms that even some tax lawyers have trouble understanding. During tax season, animus for the IRS reaches its peak as taxpayers are reminded what an intrusive, overbearing bureaucracy the Internal Revenue Service has become. Nobody likes taxes, and nobody likes tax collectors. They are necessary evils. But if we must have them, then we need to do all we can to ease the burden they impose on our citizens and to make the system user-friendly and respectful of our people. The IRS system today is neither user-friendly nor respectful. Today we have an IRS that is out of control from top management all the way down to its field offices, and the American taxpayers are paying the price for that disarray--a price in inefficiency, inconvenience, intrusiveness, and even harassment. The American people deserve better. It is bad enough that taxpayers have to pay for an agency that wastes their money and time. But it is simply unacceptable that the IRS has tolerated some of its employees snooping through confidential taxpayer information. The headlines of our newspapers have been littered with accounts of IRS employees reading taxpayers' confidential files without authority and without cause. During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, there were 1,515 cases of IRS employees browsing through confidential taxpayer computer records, according to a recent General Accounting Office report. These employees violated the privacy of hundreds of taxpayers when they snooped through the tax returns of friends, family member or celebrities without authorization and without justification. Yet, of those 1,515 cases of snooping, only 844 resulted in employees being fired, disciplined, or counseled. Let me emphasize that, Mr. President--only 844 of the 1,515 snoops had action taken against them. That means almost 700 known cases of snooping went unpunished. This is not acceptable. Unauthorized snooping is wrong and intolerable. That is why the laws need to be changed. The Taxpayer Privacy Protection Act imposes civil and criminal penalties against IRS employees who snoop through tax returns and related information without authority. It puts real power in the hands of taxpayers who are the victims of IRS snooping--it lets them bring suit against the IRS employee who is responsible. Under this legislation, IRS employees can be fired, fined, and jailed if they are found guilty of snooping. This bill is an important step toward protecting Americans from an out of control IRS. It is an important step toward holding IRS employees accountable for their actions. It is a small but important step toward making our tax system respectful, trustworthy, and sound. It should become law--now.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to introduce legislation that will cut taxes and improve access to health insurance for millions of small business owners and farmers across America. Our legislation--the Health Insurance Tax Equity for Self-Employed Act--is a bill about fairness. Under current law, corporations can deduct from their income tax the full amount of money spent on health care for their employees. But the 10\1/2\ million self-employed men and women in America cannot fully deduct what they spend on their own health care. They can deduct a percentage--which is now 40 percent and will increase to 80 percent by 2006--but they cannot deduct the entire cost. Our bill would immediately eliminate this disadvantage--effective January 1, 1997--and put the self-employed on the same footing with their incorporated competitors. And it would make health insurance more affordable for the 3 million uninsured Americans who are self-employed. This bill will make a real difference to real people. The high cost of health insurance was the No. 1 problem that small businesses cited in a recent comprehensive study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB]. Small business owners often pay 30 percent more for the cost of their health insurance than do larger companies--they pay more, but they can deduct less. Our bill will make health insurance more affordable for small business owners. That is why it has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. It also is strongly supported by the National Farm Bureau and by the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation. Both have sent me letters endorsing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these be submitted for the Record.