Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Wednesday at 10 a.m. and will begin consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Amendments will be offered; therefore, votes will occur throughout the day and into the evening in an effort to make progress on the last remaining appropriations bill. Also, the Senate may be asked to consider any appropriations conference reports as they become available for action.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 29. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. And I ask consent that the motion to proceed to that bill be considered agreed to.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Ohio for his leadership on the ``Carousel Retaliation Act.'' I am a free trader, but I am also a fair trader. Trade is our economic future. It is especially so in agriculture. Trade is our strongest engine of economic growth. I, as have many of my colleagues, have fought for legislative reform on unilateral sanctions policies that hurt our trade, trade reform, fast-track authority for the President, and other trade-related legislation. Free trade is a two-way street. Unfortunately, throughout the world the instinct for protectionism still remains strong. If trading partners take advantage of us, we can't simply remain passive and permit American exporters--especially farmers and ranchers--to continue to take a beating in foreign markets. Trade is a two-way street. Free, fair, and open trade is a two-way street. Access to markets improves all people's standard of living. Some of our trading partners believe this. Some people talk about it, and some people actually do something about it. Unfortunately, many of our trading partners' rhetoric is stronger than their actions. That is why I am an original cosponsor of this bill. As you heard from my colleague, Senator DeWine, this bill would require the U.S. Trade Representative to periodically review a retaliation list of foreign products from countries that fail to comply with the World Trade Organization rulings or do not reduce trade barriers against the United States. Different products would be rotated on and off the list every few months until the offending countries made the right changes in trade policy. That is what we as a community of nations of civilized people decided to do when we formed the World Trade Organization. That is what the World Trade Organization is about--to sort through disputes in trade. If we cannot rely on the World Trade Organization to make tough decisions, settle those disputes, and then enforce the WTO rulings, then what good is the organization? If the members of the World Trade Organization find some rulings against their own self-interest and not in compliance with what they think is right, or if they believe they must pick and choose which WTO rulings they will enforce and live with, then we don't have much of an open, fair, and free trade organization that today is known as the World Trade Organization. It is a myth and it is a charade unless we all comply with the WTO rulings and enforce the rulings. That is the only way it will work. The policy of targeted tariffs is prompted, quite honestly, by the European Union's ban on American beef. There is no scientific evidence to support the European Union's contention that using growth-enhancing hormones in cattle poses any health threat to humans. There is no scientific evidence at all. But yet, even though we have won case after case in the World Trade Organization, the European Union continues to walk through this charade of artificial tariffs and barriers. The hormone argument is a very flimsy excuse, at best, for straight out, raw protectionism. The WTO's recent position vindicating their position was essentially a slap on the wrist for the EU, and still the EU is trying to delay compliance with even this token penalty. If the EU keeps playing games with the United States in the hormone- enhancing beef issue, this policy of targeted tariffs will provide us with a flexible, effective way to respond. No one wants to take this kind of action. But each one of us in this body represents hard-working constituents who seek to improve their communities, enhance the growth of their families, give the world opportunities, and playing by the rules. That is what we are talking about here--playing by the rules straight out, to be honest. Again, I don't look forward to working on this bill to implement it if, in the interest of open, fair, and free trade, we must resort to this kind of activity. American farmers and ranchers are hurting partly because of weak export markets. It is not because they are not producing quality products. We produce quality products. But it is because of politics and protectionism. I strongly support this bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I am sorry we have to take this measure, but it is necessary. And the world must understand that the United States will do whatever it takes to support our producers and to assure, as best we can, that the world improves all people's lives, all people's standard of living, hope, opportunity, and economic growth if we continue to make progress with free, open, fair trade.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Ohio for his leadership on the ``Carousel Retaliation Act.'' I am a free trader, but I am also a fair trader. Trade is our economic future. It is especially so in agriculture. Trade is our strongest engine of economic growth. I, as have many of my colleagues, have fought for legislative reform on unilateral sanctions policies that hurt our trade, trade reform, fast-track authority for the President, and other trade-related legislation. Free trade is a two-way street. Unfortunately, throughout the world the instinct for protectionism still remains strong. If trading partners take advantage of us, we can't simply remain passive and permit American exporters--especially farmers and ranchers--to continue to take a beating in foreign markets. Trade is a two-way street. Free, fair, and open trade is a two-way street. Access to markets improves all people's standard of living. Some of our trading partners believe this. Some people talk about it, and some people actually do something about it. Unfortunately, many of our trading partners' rhetoric is stronger than their actions. That is why I am an original cosponsor of this bill. As you heard from my colleague, Senator DeWine, this bill would require the U.S. Trade Representative to periodically review a retaliation list of foreign products from countries that fail to comply with the World Trade Organization rulings or do not reduce trade barriers against the United States. Different products would be rotated on and off the list every few months until the offending countries made the right changes in trade policy. That is what we as a community of nations of civilized people decided to do when we formed the World Trade Organization. That is what the World Trade Organization is about--to sort through disputes in trade. If we cannot rely on the World Trade Organization to make tough decisions, settle those disputes, and then enforce the WTO rulings, then what good is the organization? If the members of the World Trade Organization find some rulings against their own self-interest and not in compliance with what they think is right, or if they believe they must pick and choose which WTO rulings they will enforce and live with, then we don't have much of an open, fair, and free trade organization that today is known as the World Trade Organization. It is a myth and it is a charade unless we all comply with the WTO rulings and enforce the rulings. That is the only way it will work. The policy of targeted tariffs is prompted, quite honestly, by the European Union's ban on American beef. There is no scientific evidence to support the European Union's contention that using growth-enhancing hormones in cattle poses any health threat to humans. There is no scientific evidence at all. But yet, even though we have won case after case in the World Trade Organization, the European Union continues to walk through this charade of artificial tariffs and barriers. The hormone argument is a very flimsy excuse, at best, for straight out, raw protectionism. The WTO's recent position vindicating their position was essentially a slap on the wrist for the EU, and still the EU is trying to delay compliance with even this token penalty. If the EU keeps playing games with the United States in the hormone- enhancing beef issue, this policy of targeted tariffs will provide us with a flexible, effective way to respond. No one wants to take this kind of action. But each one of us in this body represents hard-working constituents who seek to improve their communities, enhance the growth of their families, give the world opportunities, and playing by the rules. That is what we are talking about here--playing by the rules straight out, to be honest. Again, I don't look forward to working on this bill to implement it if, in the interest of open, fair, and free trade, we must resort to this kind of activity. American farmers and ranchers are hurting partly because of weak export markets. It is not because they are not producing quality products. We produce quality products. But it is because of politics and protectionism. I strongly support this bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I am sorry we have to take this measure, but it is necessary. And the world must understand that the United States will do whatever it takes to support our producers and to assure, as best we can, that the world improves all people's lives, all people's standard of living, hope, opportunity, and economic growth if we continue to make progress with free, open, fair trade.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. We both realize that budget restraints are tight this year. But I am hopeful that Chairman Gorton and Ranking Minority Member Byrd will find a way to fully fund this project when the conference committee meets on the Interior appropriations bill later this fall.

Mr. HAGEL. It is my understanding that these federal dollars will be in addition to the private dollars raised by Chadron State College and the Mari Sandoz Heritage Society.

Mr. HAGEL. I join my friend, the senior Senator from Nebraska, in supporting a federal appropriation for the Mari Sandoz Cultural Center. Nebraska has produced a number of this nation's most significant writers. The John Neihardt Center in Bancroft and the Willa Cather Center in Red Cloud commemorate two of Nebraska's most famous literary figures. A facility dedicated to Mari Sandoz would be an appropriate addition on to the state's literary heritage. Following Mari Sandoz's death, Chadron State College came into possession of her writing and personal artifacts. The College developed the idea of the cultural center as the best way to preserve her legacy. Plans for the center include museum display areas for American Indians and Sandoz family artifacts, rooms for meetings and workshops on Sandoz' work, archives for Sandoz' manuscripts, and an herbarium that will complement the descriptions of regional flora central to Sandoz' literature. The center would be a perfect tribute to one of Nebraska's finest writers.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to register my strong support and yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first I add my thanks and appreciation to the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for the leadership he has provided in getting a very fair, responsible, realistic, reasonable tax cut this far. It has been a rather remarkable achievement. It is the right thing for America. I rise to state my strong support for this bill. We have heard a lot of talk about standards of fairness, is this right, does it help everyone. That is a good question, an appropriate question. I ask these questions: What can be more fair than an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates? Everyone who pays Federal income tax benefits. Let's put some perspective on this. This tax cut bill is focused on those who pay taxes. It might be a revelation for some, but actually it is true and we acknowledge that right from the beginning. This is about tax relief for those who pay Federal income taxes. Another relevant question is: What is more fair than ensuring people do not pay more in taxes just because they are married? Was it fair that we penalized married couples? No. This tax bill addresses that issue, and we do something about it. In fact, we make it fair. Are only rich people married? I don't think so. I think a lot of middle-class people are married. I think a lot of people at the bottom of the economic structure who pay Federal income taxes are married. Surely, they will benefit from this tax bill. Another question: What is more fair than making sure farmers--we have been talking about farmers all week--and small businesspeople, the engine of economic growth in America, don't have to sell their farms or their businesses in order to pass them on to their children so they, in fact, can keep farming? That is fair. Are there people in the middle-class economic structure of America who so fit? I think so. Another question: What is more fair than making sure self-employed individuals have the same opportunities as big corporations when it comes to deducting the cost of health insurance? I think that is rather fair. What about this: What is more fundamentally fair than giving back to the American people their money when they are paying too much in taxes, say, over $3 trillion more in taxes projected over the next 10 years? This bill does that. It does it fairly; it does it reasonably; it does it realistically; and it does it responsibly. We have heard in this Chamber over the last few minutes some of my colleagues talk about Social Security. My goodness, all responsible legislators, all responsible Americans would not dare take Social Security surpluses and use those for tax cuts. We are not talking about that. If the American public gets a sense that there is just a hint of demagoguery in this, they might be right and they actually might be on to something because the fact is, this plan does not do that. All Social Security surpluses are laid aside. We do not cut Medicare. We do not cut into spending. We provide for the adequate national defense requirements and, in fact, increase national defense spending over the next 10 years, veterans' benefits, and education benefits. That is where every 75 cents of this $1 overpayment goes. The other 25 cents goes back to the taxpayer. This is not theory or some abstract debate. You either favor tax cuts or you do not. We can all dance around this and we can confuse each other and say: It's not fair and it's not reasonable. In the end, this place is about decisionmaking, hard choices. It is about hard choices, and you either agree that we should cut taxes or you do not. That is what we are going to vote on today. There are two clear choices: Give the American people a tax cut or keep the money in Washington where it surely will be spent.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the nomination of Richard Holbrooke to be this country's Ambassador to the U.N. I was thinking the other day when we were engaged in the Foreign Relation Committee's fourth hearing on Mr. Holbrooke --four hearings on Mr. Holbrooke. We looked rather closely and thoroughly at his policies, his background, his professional and personal life. He did not come up short in all of those areas. But I was thinking, I don't know if there has been an individual who has been more probed and investigated for this very important position than Mr. Holbrooke. I have believed for a long time that the President of the United States deserves his team. As he nominates his team for the Senate to pass judgment on, give advice and consent, as constitutionally is our responsibility, if that individual possesses the high moral quality and qualifications, and the high professional standings, qualifications, and experience, then the President needs his team. I echo much of what has been said this morning about how important it is that we get our Representative of the United Nations. Now, we have differences of opinion in philosophy and policy, and I appreciate that. Every Senator has his or her own position, as it should be. But I will say this as my last comment about Mr. Holbrooke. I hope and I believe he will make every effort to bring some bipartisanship to foreign policy. It seems to me that we have allowed bipartisanship in foreign policy and national security affairs to erode and come undone to the point where it is dangerous. I believe both sides are responsible. I think the President hasn't reached out enough, and I think we in the Congress have made foreign policy and national security affairs a more brittle, raw political dynamic. If we don't come back together, as bipartisanship needs to be sewn back together in these very important issues for the future of our country and stability of the world, we will pay a high price. I hope that Mr. Holbrooke will lead that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I will yield to Senator Ashcroft. That is in his part of the bill. Our two bills were melded together.

Mr. HAGEL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support this amendment. I am a cosponsor. As Senator Ashcroft noted, it is the blending of Senator Ashcroft's bill and my bill that produced this amendment. This amendment establishes a basic principle: Food and medicine are the most fundamental of human needs and should not be included in unilateral sanctions. The rate of change in today's world is unprecedented in history. Trade, and particularly trade in food and medicine, is the common denominator that ties together the nations of the world. American exports of food and medicine act to build bridges around the world. It strengthens ties between people and demonstrates the innate goodness and humanitarianism of the American people. This amendment recognizes that there could be reasons to restrict food and medicine exports and recognizes that, in fact, sometimes unilateral sanctions are in the best interests of this Nation's security. We do not take that ability away from the President of the United States. That is not what this amendment does. We all recognize that there are times when unilateral sanctions should, in fact, be in the arsenal of our foreign policy tools, but it also recognizes that the Congress should have a role in that decision. This amendment recognizes that there are circumstances where export controls may be necessary, such as in times of war, if it is a dual-use item controlled by the Commerce Department, or if the product could be used in the manufacture of chemical or biological weapons. That is not the debate here. That is not the debate. But we have had a long and sad history in understanding what unilateral sanctions do to those who impose them. We don't isolate Cuba. We don't isolate China. We don't isolate any nation other than our own interests when we say: We will not sell you our grain, our medicines. Do we really believe that in the world we live in today a nation cannot get wheat from Australia, from Canada, or cannot get soybeans from Brazil? The fact is that the world is dynamic. It has always been dynamic. The challenges change. The solutions to those challenges, the answers to those challenges, must be dynamic as well. We need to send a strong message to our customers and our competitors around the world that our agricultural producers are going to be consistent and reliable suppliers of quality and plentiful agricultural products. I heard the discussion on the floor of the Senate today about this amendment--talking about, well, my goodness, are we trying to fix the problems of farmers with this amendment with sanctions reform? No. No, we are not. But I think it is important we understand that this is connected. This is linked. Trade reform and sanctions reform were, in fact, part of the commitment that this Congress made to our agricultural community in 1996. We need to lead. We need to be creative. We need to be relevant. We need to connect the challenges with the policy. USDA, for example, reports that the value of agricultural exports this year will drop to $49 billion. That is a reduction from $60 billion just 3 years ago. American agriculture is already suffering from depressed prices and reduced global markets, as we have heard very clearly today, making sanctions reform even more important. Again, let's not blur the lines of this debate. I noted as well the debate today on the floor regarding the Iranian piece of sanctions reform. Let's not forget that when America broke diplomatic relations with Iran, Iran was the largest importer of American wheat in the world. I think, as has been noted, Iran this year will import almost $3 billion worth of wheat. Are we talking about just the commercial interests and the agricultural interests of America and national security interests be damned? No, we are not talking about that. This amendment gives the President the power, when he thinks it is in our national security interests or in our national interests as he defines those through his policy, to impose unilateral sanctions. However, he does it with the Congress as a partner; the Congress has a say when we use unilateral sanctions. This is not just about doing what is right for the American farmer and rancher, the agricultural producer. This amendment also makes good humanitarian and foreign policy sense. Our amendment will say to the hungry and oppressed of the world that the United States will not make their suffering worse by restricting access to food and medicine. I have heard the arguments; I understand the arguments. I don't believe I live in a fairyland about where the food goes, where the medicine goes. We understand there always is that issue when we export food, sell food, give food to dictators, to tyrants. We understand realistically where some of that may be placed. To arbitrarily shut off to the people, the oppressed masses of the world, food, medicine, and opportunities is not smart foreign policy. It is not smart foreign policy. It will make it harder for an oppressive government, the tyrants and dictators, to blame the United States for humanitarian plights of their own people. In today's world, unilateral trade sanctions primarily isolate those who impose them. For those reasons and many others that Members will hear in comments made yet this afternoon on the floor of the Senate, I strongly encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at what we are doing, what we are trying to do, to make some progress toward bringing a unilateral sanctions policy into a world that is relevant with the borderless challenges of our time. I believe we do protect the national interests of this country, that we sacrifice none of the national interests on behalf of American agriculture. In fact, this amendment accomplishes both. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, over the weekend in Nebraska, I met with a number of agricultural producers about the current prices in American agriculture. Over the last 3 weeks, my staff and I have spoken to over 100 agricultural producers in the State of Nebraska--hog producers, cattle producers, grain producers; and then the second rim, the outer rim representing the agricultural community--bankers, implement dealers, automobile dealers. All had a consistent theme as to what we must do to direct our attention and our effort to dealing with this crisis in America. As we begin debate today on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill and on the emergency appropriation for agriculture, we should keep in mind some important dynamics about American agriculture. Leaders of both parties in the Senate committed last week to including in the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill an emergency funding measure to provide the short-term assistance needed for our agricultural producers, and that assistance should include increasing the market transition payments--I am confident we will see legislation to do that--lifting the caps on loan deficiency payments, and additional funding for crop insurance. I know that part of Freedom to Farm in 1996 was the commitment to America's agricultural producers to, in fact, reform crop insurance. We are on our way in that area, but we have not yet arrived at that reform. Crop insurance is a very key dynamic to the future of American agriculture. The emergency appropriations bill should include relief for livestock producers, and I am confident we will see that in both of the bills that will be presented today, plus other emergency measures. As we address this immediate crisis, we must continue to work on the long-term priorities. The perspective is clear. We have an immediate problem, and we will address that immediate problem. But let us not lose sight of the long-term priorities for American agriculture. To do that we must focus on the demand side of the equation. When I talk about the demand side of the equation, I am talking about trade. I am talking about trade policies that encourage market development and the opening of new markets for our producers. We must continue to work for trade and sanctions reform--another critical component of the 1996 farm bill. I regret to say that Congress and the President have not done a very good job in the area of trade and sanctions reform. We are working on it, but we are a long way from being where we should be. For example, it is estimated that current unilateral sanctions cost the U.S. economy more than $20 billion each year. Who do we penalize? Who do we hurt? We hurt ourselves. We must stop using agricultural policy as a foreign policy weapon. Instead, we must extend a strong message to our customers and competitors around the world that U.S. agricultural producers are consistent and reliable suppliers of quality and plentiful agricultural products. We need fast track authority for the President in order to reach trade agreements that will open more markets to our agricultural goods and allow our producers to compete on a level playing field. Today we stand in a situation that is unprecedented in the last 25 years. This President of the United States has been without fast track negotiating authority since 1994. Obviously, there has been a lack of focus on priority on this issue. Every day the President does not have the authority to negotiate trade treaties and arrangements and deals, the European Union is doing it; the South American trade organization Mercosur is doing it; others are doing it. We are not. Do we not understand that we will pay a very significant price, a high price, for being moved out of those markets because we have not placed trade as a high priority? Fast track authority is certainly a very clear example. We must work to break down protectionist barriers in the next round of the World Trade Organization negotiations being held this fall in Seattle and strongly oppose the European Union's delay on lifting the ban on hormone-enhanced beef. We should work with China to encourage its entrance into the WTO. Do we really not understand that it is surely in the best interests of America, stability in the world, and new markets for all American products to have China in the World Trade Organization, not cutting corners but complying with all the necessary criteria to be a member of the WTO? It is in our best interests to continue to bring China into responsible organizations where China has more responsibility and accountability and opens a market of 1.3 billion people. We need more focus in that effort. The President must make trade a top priority. He must make trade a top priority and then lead. It is not good enough to say our trade ambassador will negotiate. The President sets the agenda; the President sets the priority. Presidents lead. The next President of the United States is going to be consumed with an immense series of challenges. The Congress needs to place a higher priority on working in these challenges. We must fulfill our commitment to American agriculture for tax and regulatory reform. Our national tax policy should encourage long-term investment in production agriculture that helps our current producers stay in business. We must reduce Government regulation and cut taxes. There are a number of things we can do, that we promised we would do in 1996: Eliminate the estate tax. Our family farmers should not have to sell the family farm to pay taxes in order to keep the farm going. That cuts right to the core for our future and for the next generation of farmers; Provide capital gains tax relief on the sale of the farmland by our producers, expanding on the exclusion given to homeowners in 1997. Eventually, we should abolish capital gains taxes. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, affirmed his view on that before the Senate Banking Committee; Create tax-deferred farm and ranch risk management accounts to help ease fluctuations in income, thereby giving our producers another management tool; Ensure that farmers and ranchers receive the full benefits of the permanent income-averaging provisions and not lose them because of the alternative minimum tax; Obviously, we must eliminate the marriage penalty and provide 100 percent deductibility for health insurance premiums. These are real; these connect; they are relevant. They will help American agriculture; they will help our country. We must ease the regulatory burdens on our agricultural producers. The USDA, the EPA, and other regulatory agencies hit farmers with dozens of different regulations that tie up their land, they tie up their time, they tie up their capital, and reduce their efficiency and reduce their profits. To what end? What is the cost-benefit ratio? Let's take a real-life example. Two of our biggest competitors, Brazil and Argentina, have been gaining in their share of the world's commodity trade, especially in corn and wheat. The Brazilians and the Argentines are able to make a profit on these crops at prices lower than production costs in the United States. Why? There are many reasons we can measure. I will state a couple. The Brazilians and Argentines pay much lower taxes than our American agricultural producers pay. Second, they have fewer Government regulations to contend with. Their Government does not place added burdens on them, not only as producers but as marketers. Their Government actually helps. Their Government doesn't stand in the way. We need to do the same thing. In 1996, we got the Federal Government out of the farmers' fields. Now we need to get the Federal Government off the farmers' backs. In the short term, we must swiftly conclude action on an agricultural appropriations bill that will provide emergency relief to our commodity and our livestock producers. Over the long term, it is good public policy, domestically and internationally, to provide for abundant and inexpensive food. We can support that policy by adopting prudent Government policies, Government policies such as trade policies that encourage market development, policies which create international financial stability. Here is a very clear example of how the globe connects, how all 6 billion people in the world connect. Stability is the base from which we work to help develop emerging democracies, market economies, opening new opportunities and new markets. All of our policies are connected-- national defense, foreign policy, trade policy--and ``ground'' all of our other policies with an anchor of stability so that the people of the world will have the hope that they must have to have a better world and a better life. It gives all people of the world an opportunity to build bridges to each other. We need tax policies which encourage long-term investments in production agriculture to help sustain our current producers. These are the most important ways we can help our farmers and our consumers, our taxpayers, and our international trade partners. In the short term, we need to share the risks--yes, share the risks-- that from time to time will adversely impact farming, such as has been the case for the last 2 years. We cannot sustain a long-term policy of providing abundant and inexpensive food without occasionally producing more than the market will absorb in the short term. We cannot control the weather or international markets. We need to factor in those realities of farming and not act shocked every time this happens. Most agricultural producers I have spoken to, not just in the last month but in the last 4 years, 5 years, 10 years, do not believe that the United States should retreat to the 1980 set-aside, higher price support policies which they believe only extended and deepened problems of the 1980s and certainly would extend and deepen the current crisis. I agree. To support production agriculture and sustain the producer base which has contributed so much to our economic stability and prosperity, we need to provide short-term support to our agricultural producers now. Congress needs to pass a realistic and a responsible emergency agriculture bill. The Congress must act this week. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader I wish to announce that today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the pending disaster relief amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Act. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to dispose of those amendments today at a reasonable hour. As a reminder, the Senate will recess today from 12:30 to 2:15 so that the weekly party conferences can meet. As a further reminder, a cloture motion on the dairy compact amendment was filed on Monday. Therefore, under the provisions of rule XXII, that cloture vote will take place 1 hour after the Senate convenes tomorrow, unless an agreement is made by the two leaders. Prior to the August recess, it is the intention of the leader to complete action on the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Interior appropriations bill, and it is also hoped that the conference report to the tax reconciliation bill will be available for consideration. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, last week, 20 of my colleagues of both parties joined me in introducing the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act, a bill to amend the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure that the EPA used sound science in its evaluation of pesticide uses. This legislation is particularly relevant given yesterday's announcement by the EPA that they will ban two important pesticides. Let me begin by saying that a safe food supply is, of course, in everyone's best interests. We all want to ensure that our children and American consumers continue to have access to abundant, safe agricultural products. It is in the best interests of consumers and agricultural producers that decisions on pesticide uses are based on sound scientific analysis--sound scientific analysis. That was the intent of the law which passed, with strong bipartisan support, 3 years ago. In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply. It passed with the overwhelming support of the agricultural industry and was seen as a much-needed modernization of laws governing all pesticide use. As written and signed by the President, the FQPA requires the EPA to reassess all of the Nation's pesticides, using more data, taking more factors into account, and allowing greater margins of safety. The FQPA also requires that these standards be based on hard data and sound science, not arbitrary assumptions or computer models. Under the FQPA, next week the EPA faces its first deadline for announcing its evaluation of some 3,000 uses of pesticides. As EPA prepares for its deadline, it has not fully used the sound scientific analysis called for in the 1996 FQPA bill. Instead, the EPA has relied on theoretical computer models and worst case scenarios in many of these cases. The EPA frequently prefers this approach, partly as a result of not having the resources or the time to focus. But this is not what Congress intended in 1996. We did not intend for farmers to lose the use of safe and effective pesticides. We did not intend for public health officials dealing with pest control issues to lose the products that help them protect the public. The bill my colleagues and I have introduced, the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act, makes sure that EPA follows what was the intent of Congress 3 years ago. It will lessen the chance that safe and effective pesticides would be removed from the market without scientific justification; it provides a clear and predictable regulatory process based on scientific data; it streamlines the process for evaluating new pesticides; and it provides Congress with facts on how the act, as applied by the EPA, affects agriculture exports. We cannot forget that crop protection allows our farmers to produce the grains, the fruits, and the vegetables that feed not just our Nation but the world. Unnecessary regulations have a dampening effect on the engine that has fueled America's economic growth. That engine is called productivity. If the FQPA is not implemented fully and fairly, based on sound science, we will unnecessarily place our agricultural producers at a very great competitive disadvantage in world markets. Production prices will increase, productivity will decrease, and consequently our farmers will see their exports decline. This is hardly the time to be placing extra, unnecessary burdens on America's farmers. This bill is good for both consumers and agricultural producers. Consumers will continue to have safe, affordable, and abundant agricultural goods and farmers will continue to have the tools they need to produce safe, quality food products and to compete in the world market. In Nebraska, we call that common sense. I am proud to join my 20 colleagues in a strong bipartisan effort to introduce the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may require.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 238, I voted ``aye''. It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it would in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I first want to add my thanks to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for the leadership he has brought to the floor on such an important issue on a very substantive vehicle that we are using now to really make some decisions on behalf of the American public. I have heard this morning that this is an issue about priorities. Surely it is. This is about priorities. This will further be about priorities as we debate this issue throughout the day, and actually throughout this year and into next year, because the priorities are about whose money it is. It is not my money. It is not Senator Gramm's money. It is not President Clinton's money. It is the taxpayers' money. We tend to allow that to slip aside here when we are engaged in this theoretical debate. Second, we all have to appreciate that we live in the mythical kingdom around here. The political kingdom says that all the clouds and all the goodness will reside here in the knowledge and the fountain of wisdom coming forth from Washington. We are seeing a great dynamic of that given when we are trying to take the people's money and then tell them how we will spend it and give it back to them because we are benevolent Senators; we are benevolent representatives of the people; we can figure it out better. If there is a sense of arrogance in this, I think you are right if you sense that, that the Congress is going to decide who gets what; we are going to make that decision. So we are going to target all of these pieces of the pie because we can decide better for the American people how they should spend their money, if we decide to give them back some of their money. I have also heard some interesting conversations this morning about projections. As a matter of fact, I used to have a real job, and in that real job I was a businessman. I had to deal with projections because I had to put together budgets. Those budgets had to direct research and development. Those budgets had to direct investment, capital, and what we were doing for the long term. Yes, they are imperfect. Ten-year budgets are slippery, and they are dangerous. But the fact is, we must base a budget upon something. That budget must be based upon a relevant series of assumptions. So that is a given, and we have to deal with that. After we get through that, then we have to make some tough decisions. That is what we are going through today. I believe this bill that we have brought to the floor this morning does that. I think it does it first in a very responsible way. It does it in a way that allows 75 cents of every surplus dollar to go back into debt reduction projects-- Social Security, Medicare, important Government programs such as defense. The first real obligation of responsibility of the Federal Government is national security--veterans programs, education, medical research, and health care. That money is there. We are talking about a $3 trillion budget surplus--both on the budget and off the budget, meaning in Social Security and out of Social Security--$3 trillion over the next 10 years. I don't know if that is going to materialize, but one of the things we know is that we have to make some tough decisions based upon what we know and what we project. This bill does it very responsibly. It does it in a way that addresses those needs of our Republic and what we have committed to the American public. My goodness, to say that giving 25 percent of that back to the American public in a tax cut is somehow irresponsible is well beyond my calculations. Senator Mack was on the floor yesterday. I want to repeat a couple of points he made. One, he said, for example, how can a $4 billion net tax cut for fiscal year 2000 overstimulate demands in a trillion-dollar economy? Of course, as of now, this bill phases in those tax cuts over a series of 10 years. Senator Mack said yesterday, and as my colleague again reminded us, he asked rhetorically, ``Would a $39 billion tax cut in the year 2002 overheat the economy when this is only .004 percent of the total projected GDP?'' I think you get the message. We are engaged once again in this mythical kingdom of fantasy. The fact is, this money is the taxpayers' money. The fact is, this is a responsible direction of those resources that surely, if they are allowed to stay here in Washington, will be spent. The President has given us ample opportunity to look over that very generous menu he has presented to us with all of his new spending. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. I yield my time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on July 20, 1999 from 2:30 p.m.--4:30 p.m. in Dirksen 215 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Tuesday, July 20, 1999 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-106, to conduct a markup.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on U.S. policy and military operations regarding Kosovo.