Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, much of the debate this past week about campaign finance reform has missed an important dynamic of the political process. The integrity of any process depends on the integrity of the individual. We recapture the trust and confidence of the American people not by passing more laws, more regulation and more Government but by taking responsibility for our own actions and the conduct for our own campaigns--personal responsibility. Will more Government control, more regulation, more law really change our behavior and our conduct? Will more Government control make us more honest and fill us with new-found integrity? I do not think so. Systems are corrupt because of the people. Systems are not corrupt because of the system. When we lower our expectation and we lower our standards, as we have in American politics, we lower our self-worth. We lower the system. And when we do not expect much, we do not get much. When we do not expect much from our candidates and our politicians, we will not get much. It all becomes self-fulfilling. Now, why do we blame the system and excuse the violators? Where is the outrage over those who subvert the system and deliberately break the rules and the laws already in place? Where is the outrage over individuals who break the law and refuse to take responsibility for their own actions? Where are the voices demanding personal responsibility and personal accountability? Where are those voices? Those voices are now talking about the system. We glide over the alleged wrongdoing of individuals, saying, well, it doesn't count, it doesn't matter--like it is beyond our control. We say that it is the system; that is the problem. The system is flawed, not the individual but the system. We say that money is evil, money is the terrible evil in our system. We excuse the alleged wrongdoing and corruption by blaming the so-called vagaries of the campaign finance system and the laws. We dance on the pinhead of technicalities. What is allowed? What is not allowed? What is the correct shading of the law? Did the person really break the law? How must we change the rules and regulations so that this never happens again? All we need is more Government. Everybody knows that. If we have more rules, more regulation, more enforcement, more Government, then people will abide by the law. Something is greatly amiss when we are debating the technicalities of right and wrong. There are no technicalities between right and wrong. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. There are no shades of right or degrees of wrong. The difference between right and wrong is not subject to a controlling legal authority. It is a matter of honesty. It is a matter of simply just doing the right thing. Is that difficult to grasp? Is that so difficult to this body to grasp? We are here today debating whether or not to pass new laws based on the fact that some people broke the law, or at least allegedly broke the law. Those are laws that we already have. Those are regulations and rules on the books now. It is very clear. We already have laws prohibiting foreign contributions. We already have laws prohibiting the solicitation of campaign funds in a Government building. We already have laws that very clearly spell out the difference between so-called hard money and soft money. I ask my colleagues one question: How will changing the rules and the laws and the regulations change behavior of those already inclined to break them? It will not. No number of new laws and new regulations will change the basic integrity of the candidate. The integrity of the system depends on the integrity of the candidate. Each candidate must take personal responsibility for his or her own actions in the conduct of their campaigns. We need to focus on individual violations of current law. We need to focus on individual conduct and behavior, individual responsibility and accountability. If each of us in public office conducted our campaigns, every aspect of our campaigns in a manner that our constituents will be proud of, not necessarily always agreeing with our positions but be proud of how we conduct ourselves and our campaigns, then we would not be engaged in this campaign finance reform debate. People get involved and participate in a democracy because they believe in things. The idea that more people will participate in our political process if we pass more laws and regulations completely discounts the nature of free people. Politics is about people. Politics is not about Government. Politics is not about rules and regulations. Politics is about people. Politics is about people who believe in things. We will not restore the trust and confidence of the American people in elected officials and the political system by placing further restrictions, by placing further restrictions on the rights of Americans to participate in the political process. A former Governor of Deleware and former Member of Congress, Pete DuPont, made a very compelling argument in last week's Wall Street Journal when he wrote that limits in campaigns are akin to price controls in the economy. And he said, ``All of these ideas are bad economics, bad politics and, as 40 centuries have proved, very bad public policy.'' The best way to correct the system is not to replace an old bad set of rules with a new bad set of rules. That is not reform. That is rearranging the restrictions. Too many people here in Washington confuse the two. The best thing to do would be to provide the American people complete and immediate disclosure of all contributions--complete and immediate disclosure of every dollar in the system. Hard money, soft money, independent expenditures, every single dollar that goes into the system must be disclosed immediately. The press already does a good job of telling the people who is giving money to whom, when the media knows, that is. I have every confidence that if we had full disclosure of every dollar, the press would inform the people as to who is giving and receiving these contributions. They will tell the people who is spending the money for or against candidates. They will let the people know where candidates are getting their campaign contributions. Let the press do the job and report all of these contributions. I trust the people. I trust the people of this country to be able to sort it out. If they have the information, if the people of this country have the information, they will make an informed decision. They will determine what is acceptable to them, not because some bureaucrat or Washington regulator tells them what is right or wrong but the people sort it out. Just give the people the information. As Governor DuPont wrote, ``A well-informed electorate will safeguard American campaigns far better than any appointed group of the best and brightest Washington regulators.'' Another change we might look at is to again make political contributions tax deductible. We used to do that. We allow people to deduct contributions to charities. We allow union members to deduct their union dues, but if people want to participate in American democracy by giving money, it is not tax deductible. Is not our system of self-government just as important as a charity or a union? How will we restore the trust and confidence of the American people in their elected officials? By electing good people to office, by holding those who serve in public office accountable for their actions, and holding them to the highest standards. I consider serving in public office to be an honor and privilege. I know every one of my colleagues feels the same. This is not a right. This is not a right, to be in this body, to hold public office. It is not mine to hold onto by whatever means I can, no matter how questionable those means. It is a privilege bestowed on me by the people of my State. It is a privilege they also have the right to revoke. The people need to be our partners in the political process. We can create all the laws we want, but only the people--not the laws, not the regulators, not the regulations, not the system--but only the people can hold elected officials accountable for their actions. Only the people can, through their votes, determine when someone no longer deserves their trust and confidence. I believe that for far too long we have been creating a society less dependent on the voluntary rule of honesty and good behavior of the citizen than on the impressive mandates of Government. Government does not mold human behavior. Behavior comes from within. I cannot support any proposal that seeks to limit the ability of the people and institutions to express themselves and takes the power to shape our public policy debate away from the people and gives it to the Government. I cannot support such legislation. That is what McCain- Feingold would do, in the name of reform. What are we really reforming, the right of people to participate in the political process? In a free democracy, taking away people's rights is not reform. In Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme Court ruled the debate about campaign finances is about the fundamental role of the people in our democratic society. The Court wrote: In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not government but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. Madam President, the system has not failed us. Campaign dollars are not the problem. They may be the excuse--the system, dollars, may be the excuse for some. But our problems are with ourselves. What outrages the American people is the conduct of some politicians--and my good friend, Senator McCain, talked about this earlier this afternoon when he referenced in the poll the ``lying windbags,'' the lying windbags that many people think of as politicians, and I know that is true. But what really outrages the American people is the conduct of some politicians and their supporters who have corrupted the system by violating the integrity of the process for their own end. Our political leaders have, as one of their most sacred responsibilities, the responsibility to set the moral tone in America and give moral leadership. I do not mean religious leadership. I do not mean religious leadership. I mean moral leadership. Moral leadership goes well beyond the rule of law and regulation. Were the great leaders of our Nation great because of laws and regulations dictating their actions and behavior? No. Our great leaders were great because they had a moral compass and they shared that moral compass with our people and our Nation. And they relied upon that moral compass for governance. America deserves leaders who lead through the force of character and integrity, not through the force of regulation and law. Before we reform the campaign finance system, we should first look at how we might reform ourselves. We might look at how we might reform ourselves. Madam President, I would like to end my speech this afternoon with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, our third President, one of our Nation's strongest defenders of the rights of the American people. Thomas Jefferson said, many, many years ago: I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is surely not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the fact is this treaty is not based on sound science. The scientific community has not definitively--even close to definitively--concluded that there is global warming caused by human actions. The science is inconclusive and often contradictory. Predictions for the future range from no significant problem to global catastrophe. The testimony of some of our most eminent scientists and climatologists have made this abundantly clear. The global climate is incredibly complex. It is influenced by far more factors than originally thought. The scientific community has simply not yet resolved the question of whether we have a problem with global warming. But the lack of conclusive scientific data is only one of five reasons why the U.N. Global Climate Treaty is such a very, very bad idea. The other four reasons are these: The treaty excludes the over 130 developing nations, including the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases over the next 15 years. The treaty excludes these people, rendering the treaty's objectives meaningless. It would not accomplish--even if you accepted the science--what it intends to accomplish. The economic impact would be devastating for the United States. We would see the loss of millions of jobs, entire industries would flee to other countries, our people would face higher fuel costs, higher taxes, leading to lower productivity and a lower standard of living. It is not because I say this. Why, Mr. President, do we have an almost unparalleled development where American business, American industry, American agriculture, and America's labor unions are all united against this? There must be a reason. There is a good reason. The testimony is very clear on this. This also cuts to the heart of our national sovereignty. We don't hear much about our national sovereignty. Is that important to me? Yes, it is. I think it is important to every American. It cuts to the heart of our national sovereignty by setting up an international authority that would subject U.S. businesses and industries to its authority and penalties. Never before in the history of this free Nation has that occurred. This is one U.S. Senator that will not allow it to occur. And it would have a devastating impact on our national security interests. There is not much talk about that either. One of the biggest users of fossil fuels in America is what? The U.S. military. So are we really talking about subjecting our national security and our national defense to unknown environmental quests? I don't think that is smart. I don't think the American people want this body of policymakers to do that. Even if the scientists could agree--and they don't--this global climate treaty would do nothing to provide a long-term solution because of the first factor here, excluding the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases over the next 15 years. They don't have to sign up to any mandatory requirements--mandatory by the force of law, incidentally--that the United States and other developing nations would subject themselves to. Over 130 other nations would not have to do that. This makes no sense, given that these nations include some of the most rapidly developing economies in the world. What would that do to our competition? How would we be able to compete? By the year 2015, China alone will be the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. They are held harmless in this treaty. Mr. President, let the record show that in all the negotiating sessions leading up to the Kyoto treaty signing, China has made it very clear that it will never agree to binding limits on its emissions of greenhouse gases. It is the United States and other developed nations who are already doing the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is far beyond most countries here, and we continue to be. So how could any treaty aimed at reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases be at all effective when it excludes these other nations. The exclusion of these nations is a fatal flaw. It should be pointed out that these treaty negotiations are being chaired by--and this is a particularly interesting point--a diplomat from one of the developing nations. So we have an individual who is chairing these negotiations, whose country will not be required to adhere to the treaty. Yet, he is directing the United States and other developed nations to abide by mandatory treaties obligations. In fact, four of the five U.N. working groups charged with drafting the language of this treaty are chaired by diplomats from developing countries who would not be included in this treaty. All would be exempt from any binding commitments. That doesn't make sense to me, Mr. President. Third, this global climate treaty would cause a significant slowdown in the U.S. economy. One of the notable aspects of this issue in the United States is that it has united all the different groups that I mentioned. We have heard testimony from the AFL-CIO, the American Farm Bureau, National Association of Manufacturers, noted economists, and dozens of other organizations that represent the rank and file, the working American men and women in this country. They have all agreed on one thing: This treaty would have a devastating affect on America. I could go on and cite economic models, economic analyses, as to what degree. Would we lose 3 percent, as some forecasts have said, from our annual growth? Would we lose 1.5 or 2 million jobs if this treaty goes into effect? The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the President's own economic advisers are very concerned. The President's own economic advisers are very concerned about the impact this treaty would have on the U.S. economy. It was a large back-page story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. According to the article, some are concerned that ``ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions * * * could trigger economic upheaval greater than the 1970's oil shocks.'' Does anybody remember that? I do. Lawrence Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury stated, ``What we have to do, what we are all working to do, is find the best way to meet environmental objectives along with meeting strong economic growth.'' These are not the rantings and ravings of big business, or the energy industries, or some bizarre group of people--these are the concerns of the President's own economic advisers. I have not spoken with any American who would choose to relive the high energy prices and gas lines of the 1970's--all for a treaty which excludes so many nations that it wouldn't work anyway. The Argonne National Labs study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, concluded that constraints on six large industries in the United States--pertroleum refining, chemicals, paper products, iron and steel, aluminum, and cement--would result in significant adverse impacts on the affected industries. They furthermore concluded that emissions would not be significantly reduced. The main effect of the assumed policy would be to redistribute output, employment, and emissions from participating to nonparticipating countries. The fourth troubling aspect of this treaty is one which has received very little discussion, but would have long-range and far-reaching consequences. This treaty has the potential of bringing under direct international control virtually every aspect of our Nation's economy. The power of legally binding emissions mandates in this proposed treaty would control nearly all forms of a country's energy use. This kind of international authority cuts to the very heart of a nation's sovereignty. Do we want U.S. companies answering to an international authority on how much and what kinds of fuel they can use at what cost? Do we ant an international body dictating energy prices in America and enforcing these mandates? I don't think so. The fifth problem with this treaty is another which has received little discussion. America's military is one of our Nation's largest users of fossil fuels. How would legally binding controls on the emission of greenhouse gases affect our military capabilities, military readiness, flying our planes, driving our tanks, our ships? This treaty could have a serious impact on the readiness of our Armed Forces, and our ability to defend our national security interests around the world. Sherri Goodman, the Defense Department Undersecretary for Environmental Security has said that the U.N. Global Climate Treaty could have large impacts on our military. Two weeks ago Senator Inhofe and I wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Cohen asking him for an answer to press reports that the administration was planning to adopt draconian new restrictions on U.S. Government use of fossil fuels and asking for any studies the Defense Department had done to assess the impact of forced reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Why are we rushing headlong into signing a treaty in Kyoto this December? The scientific data is inconclusive, at times even contradictory. The treaty excludes the nations who will be the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The economic costs would be devastating. This treaty would be a lead weight on America's economic growth, killing jobs and opportunities for future generations. It would cause U.S. companies to have to answer to an international authority. And this treaty could have dramatic consequences for America's national security interests. An additional threat to the United States on this issue is coming from the Clinton administration. According to press reports, President Clinton is being pressured by environmental organizations to sign the kind of draconian treaty that would have all of the consequences I've just described. Some administration officials have recommended that the President sign a treaty in Kyoto and then withhold it from the Senate for ratification. In the words of one participant in that meeting, ``anything that could get through the Senate next year is probably not worth doing.'' Last month, Majority Leader Trent Lott and I sent a letter to President Clinton warning him that it ``would be a grave error to go forward with this kind of strategy and treaty, with the explicit intention of withholding such a treaty from the Senate for domestic political considerations.'' Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth testified before my Foreign Relations Subcommittee on June 19, and I specifically asked him for assurances that the administration would submit any agreement reached in Kyoto to the Senate in the form of a treaty. Undersecretary Wirth testified that ``it will either be a protocol to a treaty or an amendment to a treaty * * * (that) will have to come back up in front of the United States Senate.'' I expect President Clinton and the administration to honor the commitment stated publicly by Undersecretary Wirth. Well, Mr. President, we could go on. It is very clear that we have a real concern, a real problem. Many of us in this body are taking a rather active role in addressing this issue. I would like to end, Mr. President, with this quote. This is a quote from a recent newspaper article from Bryan Tucker of Australia, the past president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, who makes one of the best arguments for why this track to Kyoto is entirely off base. He writes, The impossibility of attaining the 1992 Rio targets was not acknowledged at Berlin, let alone the lunacy of setting still more stringent ones . . . The real trade offs were not mentioned, and many new strains of hypocrisy were in evidence . . . Environmental opportunists, grasping at any information no matter how selective or exaggerated to foment alarm, appeared completely oblivious to the downstream effects of their extravagant demands. This says it straight. This says it directly. I know that in this body the American people will hear more about this issue, as they should, and I am grateful for an opportunity this morning to talk a little bit about a very, very important issue. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. On just as important business, Mr. President, I will address this morning the issue of global warming. Let me first say that the more attention the media and the American people pay to this issue, the better. For the global climate issue will have a major impact on the future of our country, our people, and, indeed, the entire world. How the nations of the world address the global climate issue will be one of the most important global economic and environmental decisions of the next century. There are differing opinions on the conclusiveness of global warming and how we should address it. But this is not a debate nor has it ever been a debate about who is for or against the environment. I have yet to meet any American who wants dirty air, dirty water, dirty environment or declining standards of living for their children or grandchildren. We all agree on the need for a clean environment. We all want to leave our children a better, cleaner, more prosperous world. So the debate is not about those for or against a clean environment. As my colleagues, the media and many people in America know, the nations of the world are currently negotiating a treaty to limit worldwide emissions of greenhouse gasses. This treaty will be presented for signatures this December in Kyoto, Japan. Many of my colleagues and I fear the current treaty negotiations will shackle the United States' economy--meaning fewer jobs, lower economic growth and a lower standard of living for our children and our future generations. This treaty would do so without any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gasses because--because--it leaves out the very nations who will be the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, the more than 130 developing nations including China, India, Mexico, South Korea, and many others. The U.S. Senate took a very strong and unequivocal stand against this treaty in July when it approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution 95-0. That resolution states that any treaty signed by this administration must come before the Senate for ratification, and the U.S. Senate has stated very clearly that it will not approve a treaty that excludes the developing nations or that would cause serious economic harm to the United States. This body is on record by a vote of 95-0, stating that very clearly. There is simply no way for the terms of current negotiations of the Global Climate Treaty to satisfy the conditions of the Byrd-Hagel resolution. In fact, I was very disturbed, Mr. President, to learn this week when the administration's chief negotiator on this treaty, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth, briefed the Senate's global climate change observer group that he said it was very unlikely that the developing nations will be included in any treaty to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, this December. The exemption of these nations would surely bring about the treaty's defeat here in the U.S. Senate. However, this is not preventing the administration from pressing forward with this treaty. Although its final negotiating position has not yet been made public, instead of telling the Senate, the media, the American people, exactly what the administration will be pushing for at Kyoto in respect to exact emission levels and timetables, the White House has unleashed its typical spin campaign. For example, Secretary of Interior Babbitt has been out all over America on college campuses lecturing our young people about the dire and horrific consequences of global warming, while failing to mention the contradicting science, the very clear contradicting science or the very real economic consequences that would have a very real impact on this country's standard of living--jobs, future. In fact, I have to say, Mr. President, in almost unparalleled arrogance Mr. Babbitt has gone so far as to say the following about those who dare disagree with him or the administration on the issue of global warming, and who would have the audacity--can you imagine anyone challenging the administration on this issue--to argue against the treaty? I quote from the Secretary of Interior: ``* * * what they're doing is un-American in the most basic sense.'' From the Secretary of Interior. The Energy Department released a study which they said shows that the United States can achieve these reductions of emissions called for in the Global Climate Treaty without acknowledging that what they really meant to say was we could get one-third of the way to the goals under the most rosy assumptions by completely shutting down a number of American industries such as the coal industry and by increasing energy costs either through taxes or regulation. They have failed to mention that. The administration claims that the debate over the science is over. The administration said there is no debate, anymore, on the fact that the globe is warming up. While newspapers across America are writing front page-stories on alternative scientific explanations for the Earth's warming, still the administration persists. I noted that the White House hosted a session this week for weather forecasters from across America to learn more about global warming and to broadcast their weather forecasts from the White House lawn. That is an interesting photo-op, good public relations. This is what one weathercaster had to say: ``I was somewhat skeptical that human beings were really doing anything to affect the weather. But hearing the President and the Vice President state emphatically that the scientific debate is over, well, that went a long way toward convincing me.'' The scientific debate is over? Oh, no. No, quite the contrary. The scientific debate is still very much ongoing. Perhaps the White House did not read the lengthy September 23 story in the New York Times describing how a number of respected scientists and climatologists from around the world believe that variations in the Earth's temperature are the result of changes in, imagine this, solar activity. The Sun might, in fact, have something to do with global climate changes. Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory here in Washington was quoted as saying, ``We figure that half the climate change from 1850 to now can be accounted for by the Sun.'' Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center studied records of the past 120 years and determined that the Sun is responsible for up to 71 percent of the Earth's changes in temperature. Imagine that, when they added other factors into their research, that figure rose to 94 percent. Perhaps the White House didn't see the ``NBC Nightly News'' in August on a research ship funded by 23 nations that is going thousands of feet below the surface of the ocean and studying the Earth's geological history. So far, these scientists have sampled 87 miles of rock and sediment from all over the world. And according to one of the main scientists on the ship, Prof. Nicholas Christie-Block of Columbia University, they have captured about 10 million years of the Earth's history in a single core sample of mud, sand, and rock. He said, ``The information we have to judge the modern climate is incomplete. We don't have that long-term perspective.'' Studying these core samples gives the scientists information on when the Earth's oceans rose and fell. They can chart the Earth's ice ages and hot spells. Some of these scientists believe as you look at the history--specifically the history of the climate of the Earth--that we are actually at the warmest point between two ice ages. The weather forecast from that report? ``Hot tomorrow, and 50,000 years from now, skiing in Texas and sledding in Florida.'' I am sorry to say, Mr. President, that prohibits skiing in Colorado. Perhaps the White House has never heard from Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that, ``a decade of focus on global warming and billions of dollars of research funds have still failed to establish that global warming is a significant problem.'' Perhaps the White House is unaware of the research by Dr. Patrick Michaels, a distinguished climatologist and professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. In a Senate hearing, Dr. Michaels noted that conditions in the real world simply have not matched changes projected by some computer models. Most of the warming this century occurred in the first half of the century when there was not a greenhouse gas emissions problem. He further testified that 18 years of satellite data actually show a slight cooling trend. These data are backed up by balloon data. Even the chairman of the U.S. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Bert Bolin, admits the uncertainty. When informed that Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth stated in testimony that the science was settled, Dr. Bolin stated, ``I've spoken to [Tim Wirth], and I know he doesn't mean it.'' I fear the White House Conference on Global Warming this Monday will be just as one-sided. There will not be an attempt to present the American people with a full discussion of all aspects of the global warming issue. It will be a propaganda tool to spread the truth according to the White House--another photo op--irrespective of legitimate differing views. I fear that it will not be a serious discussion of all sides. The administration underlined this attitude last week when they refused to send any witnesses at all to the Senate Energy Committee Hearing held by Senator Murkowski. I will be holding a Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing on this issue next Thursday, and I hope the administration has changed its views about sending witnesses to Senate hearings. The arrogance of the administration on this issue has been unparalleled. It does not serve the American people, nor the world, when the White House only gives them one side of an issue that will directly affect the lives of all our people and their future. And the White House, Mr. President, is not alone. Yesterday, Ted Turner ordered that all ads opposed to this treaty be pulled from CNN. This is the kind of suppression of speech we usually expect from totalitarian countries. These ads were being run by American business, business organizations, agriculture, consumer groups, and labor unions, which very much oppose the White House approach to global warming and have very legitimate concerns about the impact this treaty would have on them and the American people. Why are they running these ads? Because the White House is only telling one side of the story and because it has been difficult to get the media to cover any alternative points of view. Yet, Ted Turner thinks the treaty is a great idea. He has spoken on it all over the world--the world is coming to an end. So he unilaterally pulls the ads of those who disagree with him and prevents this viewpoint from being aired to the millions of Americans who watch CNN. Mr. President, we have heard an awful lot about free speech this week in the debate on campaign finance reform--the first amendment, the Constitution, expressions of our people, and the very foundation of America is the first amendment. Mr. Turner's action is a prime example of what will happen when you allow free speech to be cut off. This isn't even free; our people are having to buy it. I am here to talk about the rest of the story--the point of view you won't hear from Mr. Turner or the White House, and you surely won't hear it on Monday--the point of view you won't hear in many media. Mr. Turner's conduct is outrageous, his arrogance and disregard for the American public and their right to express themselves on the public airwaves is truly unparalleled. I intend, Mr. President, to ask for a Senate hearing on this and get an explanation on Mr. Turner's actions. I note that in this morning's Wall Street Journal, a rather significant editorial was written about Mr. Turner's actions. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I, too, want to add a welcome for the distinguished bishop from Colorado. My friend and colleague, Senator Allard, said it very well; we are much enriched because of the bishop's leadership and his presence this morning. I note, however, he did not offer a prayer for the Colorado Buffaloes in their anticipated contest with the Nebraska Corn Huskers. That prayer may come later.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes in morning business.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Banking Act of 1997. I'm joined in this effort by my distinguished colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. Passage of this bill will remove one of the last vestiges of the obsolete interest rate control system. Abolishing the statutory requirement that prohibits incorporated businesses from owning interest bearing checking accounts will provide America's small business owners, farmers, and farm cooperatives with a funds management tool that is long overdue. Passage of this bill will ensure America's entrepreneurs can compete effectively with larger businesses. My experience as a businessman has shown me, firsthand, that it's extemely important for anyone trying to maximize profits to be able to invest funds wisely for maximum efficiencies. During President Ronald Reagan's first term, one of his early actions was to abolish many provisions of the antiquated interest rate control system the banking system was required to use. With this change to the laws, Americans were finally able to earn interest on their checking accounts deposited in banks. Unfortunately, one aspect of the old system left untouched by the change in law was not allowing America's businesses to share in the good fortune. Complicating matters is the growing impact of nonbanking institutions that offer deposit-like money accounts to individuals and corporations alike. Large brokerage firms have long offered interest on deposit accounts they maintain for their customers. While I support business innovation, I don't believe it's fair when any business gains a competitive edge over another due to government interference through overregulation. This is exactly the case we have with banking laws that stifle bankers, especially America's small community bankers, and give an edge to another segment of the financial community. The Small Business Banking Act of 1997 seeks to correct this imbalance and allow community banks to compete fairly with brokerage firms. I'm pleased to say our bill has the strong support of America's Community Bankers and the American Farm Bureau Federation. In my home State of Nebraska, this bill has the support of the Nebraska Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association. These important organizations represent a crosscurrent of the type of support Senator Reed and I have for our bill. Senator Reed and I also have the support of the Federal regulators. In their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements'', the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, stated they believe the statutory prohibition against payment of interest on business checking accounts no longer serves a public purpose. I heartily agree. Mr. President, this is a straightforward bill that will do away with an unnecessary regulation that burdens American business. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Banking Act of 1997. I'm joined in this effort by my distinguished colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. Passage of this bill will remove one of the last vestiges of the obsolete interest rate control system. Abolishing the statutory requirement that prohibits incorporated businesses from owning interest bearing checking accounts will provide America's small business owners, farmers, and farm cooperatives with a funds management tool that is long overdue. Passage of this bill will ensure America's entrepreneurs can compete effectively with larger businesses. My experience as a businessman has shown me, firsthand, that it's extemely important for anyone trying to maximize profits to be able to invest funds wisely for maximum efficiencies. During President Ronald Reagan's first term, one of his early actions was to abolish many provisions of the antiquated interest rate control system the banking system was required to use. With this change to the laws, Americans were finally able to earn interest on their checking accounts deposited in banks. Unfortunately, one aspect of the old system left untouched by the change in law was not allowing America's businesses to share in the good fortune. Complicating matters is the growing impact of nonbanking institutions that offer deposit-like money accounts to individuals and corporations alike. Large brokerage firms have long offered interest on deposit accounts they maintain for their customers. While I support business innovation, I don't believe it's fair when any business gains a competitive edge over another due to government interference through overregulation. This is exactly the case we have with banking laws that stifle bankers, especially America's small community bankers, and give an edge to another segment of the financial community. The Small Business Banking Act of 1997 seeks to correct this imbalance and allow community banks to compete fairly with brokerage firms. I'm pleased to say our bill has the strong support of America's Community Bankers and the American Farm Bureau Federation. In my home State of Nebraska, this bill has the support of the Nebraska Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association. These important organizations represent a crosscurrent of the type of support Senator Reed and I have for our bill. Senator Reed and I also have the support of the Federal regulators. In their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements'', the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, stated they believe the statutory prohibition against payment of interest on business checking accounts no longer serves a public purpose. I heartily agree. Mr. President, this is a straightforward bill that will do away with an unnecessary regulation that burdens American business. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act as an original cosponsor. This legislation continues the battle to do away with unneeded government and wasteful spending. Over a 3-year period the Department of Commerce would be dismantled. Certain programs would be transferred or consolidated into agencies or departments that are better suited to handle them. Other programs and agencies would be terminated altogether. Unnecessary agencies and several tiers of bureaucracy would be eliminated. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the abolishment of the Department of Commerce would save taxpayers more than $2 billion over 4 years. I commend Senator Brownback for his leadership in crafting this legislation to abolish the Department of Commerce. Today the Department of Commerce is a 31,000 person department costing American taxpayers $4 billion annually. Sixty of these employees have the rank of deputy assistant secretary or higher and have annual salaries of at least $96,000 each. During my campaign, I ran on the ideals of less government, lower taxes, fewer Federal regulations and more personal responsibility. To obtain such goals, I called for the abolishment of four Federal departments including the Departments of Commerce, and Energy. Earlier this year I signed on as an original cosponsor to legislation to abolish the Department of Energy, sponsored by Senator Rod Grams. The Department of Commerce, as we know it today, was created in 1913 during the Woodrow Wilson administration to help promote American businesses around the world. Today, only 5 percent of the Department's nearly $4 billion budget is dedicated to trade promotion. By comparison $2 billion is spent annually out of the Department's budget on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Additionally, there are 19 other Federal agencies that hold some jurisdiction over trade. Trade is now a small part of the Department of Commerce. America's future lies in trade, but the Department of Commerce's bureaucracy is a relic of the past. This legislation attempts to correct that by consolidating trade functions under a single agency, the United States Trade Administration, and eliminating the waste, bureaucracy, and duplication we have today in the Department of Commerce. The time has come to abolish the Department of Commerce. We cannot continue to waste tax payers' dollars on outdated inefficient, and redundant programs. Taxpayers deserve better.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to support the Coverdell bill, of which I am a cosponsor. Mr. President, we have been debating several pieces of legislation on education here in this body over the last few weeks. It is important to clearly understand how all of this legislation fits together and why. This is about restoring the fundamental belief that education policy and curriculum belong at the local level; they are best determined by those closest to the students, who care most about the students, and who have the most to win or lose--the parents, the teachers, the local school boards, not Washington. As well-intentioned, as well-motivated, as the Department of Education is, as are the President and the Congress, who all care about education, it is those at the local level who understand it best. The Gorton amendment, which has been referred to by my friend and colleague from Alaska, was passed last week during the debate on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. This amendment block grants funds from several K-12 education programs in the Department of Education. It sends that money back to the States, back directly to school boards. The Coverdell bill, another piece of the fundamental education philosophy debate in this body, is the Parent and Student Savings Account Plus Act. This legislation, as has been referred to many times this morning, allows parents to make up to a $2,000 per year contribution in after-tax dollars to an education IRA, or you could refer to it as an expanded education savings account for primary and secondary education. Parents would be free to choose how this money and where this money would be used on behalf of their own children's education. The Coverdell bill helps families, especially lower-income families, exercise the same rights as wealthy people when it comes to deciding where their children go to school. Mr. President, I always start with this premise: Whose money is this? Whose money are we talking about? It is not my money. It is not the President's money. It is not the money of the Secretary of Education. It is the parents' money, the taxpayers' money. My goodness, should they not be empowered with some responsibility, since it is their money, as to how they use that, where they focus to help educate their children? I think so. Our education problems begin not at the college or postsecondary level. Somehow we glide over that. Our problems in education begin at the beginning, at the elementary and secondary levels. This is where we must capture these young people. This is where they learn to read and write and discipline themselves and develop logic and work through problems--at the beginning. Not in college; it is too late. This is where we should focus. This is where the choice should be. This is where students and parents desperately need a choice in education. We will probably soon have the opportunity to vote on a third education reform measure in this body, that being the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act, another fit, Mr. President, in the overall education debate, the overall education philosophy. It is no great secret that the District of Columbia school system is deeply troubled. It is not the parents' fault. It is not the students' fault. But this bill that we will debate would create a tuition scholarship fund that would allow 2,000 low-income students in the District to attend public schools, private schools, or parochial schools, but schools of their parents' choice. It would also provide direct aid to an additional 2,000 public school students who want to improve their academic skills through afterschool tutoring. As Alveda King recently wrote, ``Is it moral to tax families, compel their children's attendance at schools and then give them no choice between teaching methods, religious or secular education, and other matters?'' I do not think it is. ``Is it consistent to proclaim, meanwhile, that America is a Nation that prides itself on competition, consumer choice, freedom of religion, and parental responsibility,'' yet, in fact, we don't give our parents a choice where they send their children to school? The Gorton amendment, the Coverdell bill and the DC Student Opportunity Scholarship Act are not an attempt to destroy public schools. My goodness. And that is an important point, Mr. President. I hear my colleagues on the other side of this debate saying, ``Oh, you will destroy public schools. You will take funds from public schools.'' Nonsense. This Nation is a rich, great Nation because we have always had diversity. From the first days of the people who settled this Nation, it has been about diversity. People from all over the globe have made America great and continue to make America great. It is about diversity. It is about choice. It is about competition. Americans should want their public schools to be the very best, to be the absolute best school systems that they can make, they can provide, they can develop. I have a daughter in a public school system in Virginia. It is a good school system. I am not standing in this Chamber today to do anything that would deteriorate, take away or harm the public school systems. But we must enable all people to choose the best education for their children, whatever their circumstances are in life. And we must restore the fundamental belief that education policy and curriculum are best determined by those closest to the students-- parents, teachers, school boards--not Washington. Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Coverdell bill, and I yield my time. I thank the Chair. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I take the floor this afternoon to talk about an issue that we have debated in this body all week, an issue that is as important to our Nation as these young pages who sit among us today and the future of this country, as any issue that we debate. The issue of education is the foundation of the future of our country. At a time when our schoolchildren--over 50 million--across America are returning to school, including my 6-year-old daughter, Allyn, who started first grade last week at Great Falls, VA, elementary school, it is appropriate that we talk about education not just in terms of amendments to the appropriations bill, but we talk about education in a way that is relevant to our young people and to our future. We will continue to debate education, as we should, because not only does every home in America show, as it has shown over the years, that education is the No. 1 issue on the minds of our citizens--and well it should be--but because we spend billions of dollars on education, K through 12 and beyond. This morning's Washington Times had two very interesting articles, one talking about the American Federation of Teachers and President Sandra Feldman discussing why our young people are not being educated. If I might, Madam President, allow me to read the first paragraph of a story that appeared in the Washington Times this morning. The practice of promoting students to the next grade before they are ready is ``rampant across the country,'' according to American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman. It is a very lengthy article. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, as we pick up newspapers daily across this country we don't talk of great success stories for the most part about our American education system. We talk about failures. That will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if we allow our newspapers to be consumed with what is wrong with our public educational system without focusing on not only what is right, because there are many things right with our system, but how we fix them. How do we make American education better? It is easy to criticize. But how do we make it better? It is not just money. We know that. Quite honestly, it is more important than money. There is not a parent in this country who doesn't understand that. We need to look beyond the technicalities and the small details of the Gorton amendment, or any other amendment to the appropriations bill. We need, and we will continue, to debate a much bigger question that gets to our Nation's philosophy, our basic philosophy on education. Who should control what our children learn and what our teachers teach? The Federal Government? I don't think so. No, I don't think so. That is not the role of the Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers gave us the answer very clearly. We need to look no further than article I and amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which reserve the authority for education to the States, to the people--not to the Federal Government. Education should be between parents, teachers, and local school boards--not the Department of Education, not the President, not the Congress, but the school boards, the teachers, the parents. I am one Senator who wants to stop the flow of taxpayers' money, parents' money, coming to Washington, and it resides here, and all the smart people in Washington sort out for all the children of America-- more than 50 million--what they should know and what teachers should teach. I want to stop that. One, among many, reasons why I support the Gorton amendment is that I want to give the money back to the States, back to the people, back to the local school boards and the teachers. They can better spend it. They can reward teachers. They can improve our schools. They can help our students. Who understands it better than the people who are there? I trust the people. I trust our teachers. I trust our school boards. I don't trust Government. I don't trust Government to educate our young people. Who cares most about making sure that children get a good education? Who cares most? Well, of course, the parents care most, and the teachers care most. All parents--all parents--should have the opportunity to choose where their children go to school. It shouldn't be just for rich people. The parents pay the bills. We seem to forget that dynamic in Washington. The taxpayers, the parents of the children, pay the bill for education; for everything. Why then do we take the opportunity away from the people who pay the bill from applying their money where they think their children can get the best education? That makes sense to me. Another reason is that I support efforts by my colleague from Georgia, Senator Paul Coverdell, to allow parents to use money they have saved in educational savings accounts for K through 12 education. What in the world is wrong with that? Not only does logic dictate that that makes sense, but it seems to me that it is fundamental to America. Education standards should be set locally, not imposed by the Federal Government. We need to motivate our children to learn. We need to motivate our children to learn, not just take tests. There has been some debate lately on national testing and school standards. We are confusing the issue here by shifting the emphasis from learning to testing. We have it backward. The emphasis should not be on testing; it should be on learning. The motivation should be learning and not testing. If we institute national testing, our teachers will teach to the test. Of course, they will. Who wants to be a teacher in a school with a low standard on national testing? So if you figure out what the test is and what the testing process is and what the questions are, then you teach to the test. That is wrong. That doesn't prepare our young people. It is time that we stop making our teachers jump through the hoops that they have been jumping through with these senseless and burdensome paperwork responsibilities and free them up to do what they can do better than anybody, and that is teach our children. Let's help our teachers teach our children. It is a novel idea. Anyone who has talked to teachers in any State, in any town, or in any community has heard all the horror stories of amounts of time they spend on wasteful, unproductive paperwork. That is time that could be spent teaching our children. We need to prepare our children to compete in a global economy in the 21st century. Just preparing them to pass a test will do nothing to ensure they have the knowledge and the skills, the abilities, to compete in a very competitive new century. For example, if we let students off the hook in math by letting them use calculators for the most basic of problems, they will never learn, they will never grasp the logic and discipline gained through exercising good mathematics skills. There is nothing wrong with calculators, but let us start with the basics first. Everybody knows why we have trigonometry and geometry and the advanced mathematical courses. Very few will ever use that in their professions, but it is about discipline. It is about learning. It is about pain in your mind and using your brain. Any fool can pick up a calculator. That is not what education is about. That kind of thinking, that kind of training will be vital, if we do it right, throughout the lives of our young people for what they will need to succeed in a very competitive global economy. Where I am from in Nebraska, we call that thinking. We call that thinking. If our young people cannot read and write, they do not know much about science and math and have limited knowledge of history, economics, and geography, what chance do they have to succeed in the next century? Very little. Preparing our children for the next century is not the job of the Federal Government. My goodness, we have not been able to balance our budget for over 30 years. That is not our job. It is the job of parents and teachers and local school boards working together to ensure that all of our children have the very best education possible and ensuring that all of our children have an opportunity to attend the school of their choice. That is what this is about. Our Founding Fathers knew very clearly what they were doing when they determined that education should be a local issue. It is time we get back to the fundamental principles and basics that made this a great nation. We are a great nation today not because of our Government, not because of our systems, but because of our people. Our people have, through their wisdom, through their common sense, through their hard work, their discipline, made the right choices for over 200 years. And basic to all those choices has been how you educate your children. There will be much debate, as there should be, in this Chamber over the next few days, weeks, months, and years on our philosophy about education, but let us not forget where it all resides. It resides at the local level with the parents, with the teachers, with the schools. I wish to go on record supporting the Gorton amendment. I wish to also go on record supporting the Coverdell bill and the philosophy of local control for education. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, another story in the Washington Times this morning talks about the Governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, who was in town yesterday, it says: . . . to spread the word on how he finally made school choice a reality in his State by finding an alternative to politically unpopular vouchers. It goes on. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in praising a man who has contributed more to the morale and well being of American fighting men and women than anyone else in the 20th century. In every conflict where our forces have gone to uphold freedom or to deter aggression Bob Hope has traveled with them. As president of the USO, I worked closely with Bob Hope on many trips to visit our troops around the world. As a combat veteran of the war in Vietnam, I know personally how much he improved the lives of young Americans in Southeast Asia. The places where he entertained the troops were often dangerous areas where the enemy had the opportunity to attack. Bob Hope went there anyway, because he knew what he was doing was important to those ordinary soldiers. He may have been in danger, but our military personnel were in even greater danger. Invariably Bob Hope made the trip to these far off places during the holiday season when he could have been at home with his family, but he knew the feeling of isolation and loneliness that all soldiers feel when they are far away from their families around the holiday season. Bob Hope has received numerous awards in his life, including the Medal of Freedom, and the Distinguished Service Medal, but I can think of no finer, no more appropriate award than that of veteran. Certainly if anyone in America can be said to have served, and served with distinction, it is Bob Hope.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes to give some perspective about what this body has been doing the last few months, culminating in a vote shortly today or tomorrow on the Tax Relief Act, and what we have just done this morning in the balanced budget amendment. Four years ago almost exactly, the Congress of the United States passed the largest tax increase in the history of America. I bring that point to the front because, Mr. President, the agenda has changed. The issues have changed. We are now talking about cutting spending, cutting taxes, balancing the budget, and actually stepping up to the short-term and long-term challenges in our entitlement programs. I might add as well that this is a bipartisan effort. The vote that we just held this morning on the balanced budget amendment was 85 to 15 with strong bipartisan support--Democrats and Republicans working together. As we approach a new century--a hopeful, dynamic, energetic, new century full of great promise for our next generation--it is very appropriate that we take in this body the responsibility to focus on fiscal change and infrastructure change to prepare us as we go into this next century. We cannot hope to compete in a global economy when we overtax, overspend, and overregulate. I believe that all of us in this body have come to that conclusion. The House overwhelmingly last night passed the balanced budget amendment. They, too, will vote on the tax act, as we will shortly. But sometimes in the rush of the activity and the heat of the moment and the passion of the politics, we tend to forget what has been accomplished here. This has been a remarkable accomplishment. Imperfect? Of course. Tax cuts--not deep enough. Spending cuts--not deep enough. This body is on record in going further on dealing with some of the tough, tough issues that we are going to have to deal with in Medicare and entitlements. But what is important is that we have made a beginning--a very strong, substantive beginning. It is due to the efforts of both sides of the aisle and all in this body who have helped to make this happen. I listened to my colleagues this morning walk through some of the specifics of the tax bill. I think they are worthy of what we have done because, as you frame it up and understand it, what we have done is, for the first time in 16 years, we are about to bring real tax relief to Americans. By our vote this morning we have started to begin to harness the energy and the resources that we have in this country with showing some fiscal responsibility--balance the budget and, again, in a bipartisan way. Those are elements that should not be forgotten or dismissed easily when both sides of this debate talk about what we have done and what we have not done. So I, Mr. President, appreciate the opportunity to bring some general perspective to this, because occasionally we don't step back enough and understand what really has happened here and how this will strengthen this country and the opportunities for our young people as we go into the next century. Again, imperfect, more to do, strong beginning. And I, for one, Mr. President, as a new Senator to this body, am proud to have voted for the balanced budget amendment this morning, and I intend to vote for the Tax Relief Act when it comes to this floor. I appreciate the time which my distinguished colleague from North Dakota and the chairman of the Finance Committee have given me. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. My friend and colleague is very generous. My only other responsibility, after just a couple of brief comments, would be to preside over your insightful commentary on the floor of the Senate. If I might take advantage of the Senator's generosity, I would not need more than 5 minutes at the most.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the chairman, and to my friend and colleague from North Dakota, I thank him.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent of behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation to meet on Friday, July 25, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 25, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.