Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. On behalf of the leader, today the Senate will begin 2 hours of morning business and then resume consideration of the conference report to accompany the D.C./Labor-HHS appropriations bill. As announced on Friday, there will be no votes today. By a previous consent agreement, the vote on the conference report to accompany the D.C./Labor appropriations bill will occur at 10 o'clock Tuesday morning. Tomorrow morning there will be an additional 30 minutes of debate on the conference report prior to the 10 a.m. vote. Senators who have statements on that conference report should be prepared to come to the floor during today's session. As a reminder, two cloture motions were filed on Friday in relation to the African trade bill. Those votes will occur tomorrow as outlined by rule XXII or at a time to be determined by the two leaders. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in introducing the ``Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000.'' This bill increases disclosure requirements on campaign contributions and political broadcast advertisements. It also caps ``soft money'' contributions to political party committees at $60,000 and adjusts individual contribution limits for inflation. I am pleased that the following Senators have joined me today in offering this bill: Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Craig Thomas (R-WY). Changing the way federal campaigns are financed is inevitable, the American people will demand it. At some point, the Senate will have a full and open debate on how best to reform our campaign finance system. I was disappointed that floor procedures prevented us from doing so last week, because several of us had intended to offer amendments to the McCain-Feingold legislation. My colleagues and I introduce this bill today as a bipartisan alternative in what has been a very polarized debate. If we are ever to move forward on this issue, we will need to look at a variety of ways to reform the campaign finance system. This bill is a combination of ideas offered by myself and a number of my colleagues. Several specific provisions in this bill have widespread support by both Republicans and Democrats, and, I believe, can form a base from which consensus can build. Confidence in our political system is the essence of representative government. This begins with an open and accountable campaign financing system. We need to rise above partisan, ideological and personal rivalries, and find common ground on campaign finance reform. There are several elements that must be part of any reform of our campaign finance system. One of the most important is increased disclosure for all who participate in the political process. We should not fear an educated and informed body politic. If individuals and organizations are going to participate in the election process, their participation must be revealed to the public. To provide for fuller disclosure, this bill increases the financial reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. This legislation also takes the rules on broadcast ads that apply to candidates and extends them to all political broadcast ads. Under current federal regulations, when a candidate buys a political ad, the broadcaster is required to place information on the ad in a file that is open to the public. This includes a record of the times the spots are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased and at what rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the ad. Under current federal regulations, when an interest group places a political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet all of these requirements. This bill requires that interest-group ads related to any federal candidate or issue go into the broadcaster's public file. There would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The broadcaster would simply use the same form already used for candidate and party ads. Let me make clear one thing the bill does not do. It does not require organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership lists. It preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to know which groups are attempting to influence an election, and the privacy rights of individual donors. In addition to disclosure, we need to look at soft money contributions to national party committees. Most constitutional experts say that an outright ban on soft money would be unconstitutional. But this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading over America's politics must be stopped. We need to find a middle ground between the extremes of banning soft money and leaving it unrestricted. This bill limits soft money contributions to national party committees to $60,000. This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a return to the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s, which worked well until they were exploited and abused. We also need to increase the ability of individuals to participate in the most accountable method of campaign financing. This bill adjusts and indexes contributions to inflation and indexes them for further years. For an individual, contribution limits would increase from $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate, per election. I've heard the argument that raising these limits would give the wealthy too much influence and access. If we cap or eliminate soft money and do not adjust the hard- money limits, we will chase more money into the black hole of third- party ads, where the public cannot view the flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the sunlight where the American people have access to who is giving money and how much. We have a great opportunity to restore some of the confidence the American people have lost in their political system. Improving our system that selects America's leaders--who formulate and implement the policies that govern our Nation--is a worthy challenge.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in introducing the ``Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000.'' This bill increases disclosure requirements on campaign contributions and political broadcast advertisements. It also caps ``soft money'' contributions to political party committees at $60,000 and adjusts individual contribution limits for inflation. I am pleased that the following Senators have joined me today in offering this bill: Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Craig Thomas (R-WY). Changing the way federal campaigns are financed is inevitable, the American people will demand it. At some point, the Senate will have a full and open debate on how best to reform our campaign finance system. I was disappointed that floor procedures prevented us from doing so last week, because several of us had intended to offer amendments to the McCain-Feingold legislation. My colleagues and I introduce this bill today as a bipartisan alternative in what has been a very polarized debate. If we are ever to move forward on this issue, we will need to look at a variety of ways to reform the campaign finance system. This bill is a combination of ideas offered by myself and a number of my colleagues. Several specific provisions in this bill have widespread support by both Republicans and Democrats, and, I believe, can form a base from which consensus can build. Confidence in our political system is the essence of representative government. This begins with an open and accountable campaign financing system. We need to rise above partisan, ideological and personal rivalries, and find common ground on campaign finance reform. There are several elements that must be part of any reform of our campaign finance system. One of the most important is increased disclosure for all who participate in the political process. We should not fear an educated and informed body politic. If individuals and organizations are going to participate in the election process, their participation must be revealed to the public. To provide for fuller disclosure, this bill increases the financial reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. This legislation also takes the rules on broadcast ads that apply to candidates and extends them to all political broadcast ads. Under current federal regulations, when a candidate buys a political ad, the broadcaster is required to place information on the ad in a file that is open to the public. This includes a record of the times the spots are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased and at what rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the ad. Under current federal regulations, when an interest group places a political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet all of these requirements. This bill requires that interest-group ads related to any federal candidate or issue go into the broadcaster's public file. There would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The broadcaster would simply use the same form already used for candidate and party ads. Let me make clear one thing the bill does not do. It does not require organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership lists. It preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to know which groups are attempting to influence an election, and the privacy rights of individual donors. In addition to disclosure, we need to look at soft money contributions to national party committees. Most constitutional experts say that an outright ban on soft money would be unconstitutional. But this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading over America's politics must be stopped. We need to find a middle ground between the extremes of banning soft money and leaving it unrestricted. This bill limits soft money contributions to national party committees to $60,000. This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a return to the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s, which worked well until they were exploited and abused. We also need to increase the ability of individuals to participate in the most accountable method of campaign financing. This bill adjusts and indexes contributions to inflation and indexes them for further years. For an individual, contribution limits would increase from $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate, per election. I've heard the argument that raising these limits would give the wealthy too much influence and access. If we cap or eliminate soft money and do not adjust the hard- money limits, we will chase more money into the black hole of third- party ads, where the public cannot view the flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the sunlight where the American people have access to who is giving money and how much. We have a great opportunity to restore some of the confidence the American people have lost in their political system. Improving our system that selects America's leaders--who formulate and implement the policies that govern our Nation--is a worthy challenge.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. I wish to follow behind the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, in his remarks about a great loss for the Senate and for our country; that is, the loss of the senior Senator from Rhode Island, John Chafee. We have all lost a friend. We have lost a man of immense dignity, a man of immense courage. I have had the privilege of serving in this body for almost 3 years. One of the individuals with whom I became acquainted early was Senator Chafee. As our friendship developed, he and I would talk about his service in World War II in the South Pacific, where it happens that my father served at the same time, same places, Guadalcanal, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Australia. My father served in the Army Air Force; John Chafee served as a marine. Chafee never penalized my father for less service, being in the Army Air Force. If my father were alive today, he would be very proud of the friendship I established with John Chafee. In fact, my father died when I was 16 years old. My father was just a day younger than John Chafee. We don't often have an opportunity to get to know our colleagues in intimate ways, in ways that show the younger Senators what has developed this amazing Senator, a Senator's Senator, but as you spend time with your colleagues, you appreciate how they were molded, how they were shaped, and why they had, in the case of John Chafee, such an immense capacity to serve--as has been noted this afternoon, the illustrious career of this magnificent individual. Let me share for a moment a couple of personal stories. When Senator Chafee and I were in Kyoto, Japan, in December of 1997, we were on the opposite sides of that issue. He used to say to me: Hagel, you're a bright boy. One of these days you will understand what I am trying to teach you about the environment. So after 4 days at Kyoto, I said to Senator Chafee: Why don't I take you to China. Senator Chafee had been to China a number of times, as I had been. So we went to China for 5 days, and I took him deep inside China where he had never been. We spent some time at fertilizer plants. On one occasion we were out in the field with a farmer in China, and he took a picture of me. Then he had a picture taken of both of us around a two-wheeled garden tiller. He had that picture framed when we came back to the United States, and he inscribed it and sent it to my office. It still hangs in my conference room. It says: To my friend, Chuck Hagel, just another typical day out on the Nebraska prairie with a Nebraska tractor. Signed, your friend, John Chafee. I am very proud of that picture, which will hang, as long as I am in the Senate, in my conference room. And whenever I leave this great institution, I will take that photo with me. I think he was always a little amazed that I was able to get us in to see the Premier of China during that trip. He asked me that night, after we were having dinner, how I did that. I said I used his name. He was quite astonished that his name would have that much appeal to the Chinese but actually the Chinese knew all about Senator Chafee. It is rare that an individual leaves an institution so much better than he found it, as John Chafee leaves the Senate; it is rare that an individual leaves the world so much better than he found it, as did John Chafee. We shall miss him for his counsel, his wit, his friendship, but we will probably miss him most because he always elevated the debate. He did it with eloquence, elegance, and dignity. As an old army sergeant, I sign off to a Secretary of the Navy, and I do so with great pride and great humility, knowing that we are all better off because John Chafee touched us. We salute you, Secretary Chafee. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join the chorus of voices calling for the Old Executive Office Building to be renamed in honor of Dwight D. Eisenhower. President Eisenhower had a direct connection to the building. He worked there as an aide to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and as Army Chief of Operations. As President, he saved the building from demolition. But of course the reasons for commemorating President Eisenhower in this way are far more profound than his historical connection to the building. At the close of this century, America is the world's lone superpower--due in large part to the leadership of President Eisenhower from 1953-60, the years when the course to our current position of supremacy was being charted. A world power structure going back several centuries was shattered by World War II. America had made a grave mistake after World War I by retreating into isolationism. Fortunately, after the Second World War, the United States recognized its responsibility to assume leadership of the free world in the global confrontation with communism. The man most responsible for solidifying America's postwar position was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower, former supreme allied commander in World War II and then supreme commander of the new North Atlantic Treaty Organization, understood perhaps better than any man of his time how the world was interconnected--and how America's destiny was intertwined with the destinies of its friends and enemies throughout the world. He was not afraid to lead in foreign policy. Nor was he afraid to lead in domestic policy, especially in race relations. We think of the 1960s as the decade of civil rights, but it was President Eisenhower who ordered the complete desegregation of the Armed Forces. It was President Eisenhower who sent Federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to guarantee compliance with a court order for school desegregation. Naming the Old Executive Office Building for Dwight D. Eisenhower is a fitting way to honor the many ways he contributed to the building of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Twenty minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise in support of campaign finance reform. I first commend my colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, for their tireless efforts in keeping campaign finance reform alive and forcing the Senate to deal with its responsibilities. The debate about campaign finance reform is one we need to have. All of us who have the high privilege to hold office have a responsibility to bring open and accountable government to the American people. This begins with an open and accountable campaign financing system. The American people must have confidence in such a system. Confidence in our political system is the essence of representative government. Our challenge has been to reform the excesses of the system while preserving the first amendment rights of all Americans to express themselves and engage in the political process. In recent years, this challenge has caused Congress to shrink from serious attempts at campaign finance reform. We are better than that. America deserves more than a vacuous sleepwalk through this debate. The Supreme Court has said Government can regulate how campaign finances are regulated as long as, No. 1, regulations are kept to a reasonable minimum, and, No. 2, they are designed to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The appearance of corruption is a significant part of this debate. My colleagues are not a bunch of campaign finance bandits or thugs, but in a democracy where citizens freely choose their leaders, perception does matter because perception is directly connected to confidence. Voters lose faith in the integrity of the political system when they lose confidence in the system. As they become demoralized and detached, citizens lower their expectations and standards for public officeholders. That produces a problem that goes beyond any remedy we can offer here on the floor of the Senate. No amount of legislation can prevent scoundrels from exploiting campaign finance laws or any laws. We need to rise above partisan, ideological, personal rivalries and find common ground on campaign finance reform, elevate the debate, and enact relevant reforms. For me, disclosure is the core of campaign finance reform. The overriding purpose of the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s was to increase transparency and accountability in the political system. Disclosure rules for all who participate in the political process need to be a part of whatever reform package we produce. The public needs to see who is writing the checks, and for how much. The voter needs to be aware of the flow of campaign dollars. We should not fear an educated and informed body politic. All elected officials have an obligation to be part of that educational process. In recent years, interest groups have come crashing into races in the home stretch, pouring huge amounts of money into radio and TV ads. All of us know stories of outside groups launching a late blitz of ads, moving poll numbers in the final weeks or days of a campaign, and then disappearing without the public knowing who they were and how much they spent for or against the candidate. It is time to end this type of political stealth raid on campaigns. If individuals and organizations are going to participate in the electoral process--and they should; we encourage all individuals and organizations to participate--then the extent of their participation should be revealed to the public. As long as the voter can see where the money is coming from, and where it is going, our system will retain its integrity. I trust the American people to elevate this debate and evaluate the flow of money in campaigns. In addition to the disclosure, we need to look at soft money contributions to national party committees. I appreciate the legitimate free speech and constitutional concerns in this area. Our purpose here is not to anticipate or resolve every hypothetical constitutional challenge. Our job here is to make policy. If complications or honest differences of interpretation and opinion result, that is why we have a judicial system. What I do know is this. The unaccountable status quo on soft money needs to be changed. Most constitutional experts say an outright ban on soft money probably is unconstitutional. Every court decision rendered so far on this issue has come down against an outright ban on soft money. But this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading over America's politics should be checked. We have constitutional limits on individual contributions--so-called hard money. Why then should it be so outrageous to examine limits on soft money? What are we afraid of? We need to find a middle ground between the extremes of banning soft money and leaving it unlimited, a middle ground where compromise is possible. We should also raise limits on donations of hard money by individuals and political action committees. This can be done by indexing individual contributions to inflation. Raising the limits would have beneficial effects. Individual contributors would have an impact comparable to what Congress intended when reforms were first enacted in the 1970s. There would be more focus on individual participation in campaign financing. More campaign money would be under the direct control of candidates, making them more accountable for the spending and the conduct of their campaigns. Remember, this is hard money, accountable money. These are the general principles behind the amendment I wanted to talk about today. But before getting to the specifics of this amendment, I have to say a word about the current process. We need campaign finance reform, but we are not going to get it through the predicament in which we find ourselves today--limited opportunities for debate, no opportunities for additional amendments, and no votes on those amendments. My colleagues, Senators Abraham, DeWine, Gorton, and Thomas, and I had planned to offer amendments to McCain-Feingold today. Now we are left only with the opportunity to talk about the amendments we would have offered if we had been given a chance to do so. The amendments my colleagues and I intended to offer contained several significant changes in current campaign finance law. I will focus on the ones my colleagues and I believe are most important. Our amendment, first, would limit to $60,000 a year the total amount of soft money the national party committees combined could receive from an individual, PAC, corporation, or union. A donor could give all $60,000 to one committee or spread the $60,000 over several committees. But the aggregate soft money donation could not exceed $60,000 per year. The limit would be indexed for inflation in future years. All union and corporate donations still would be treated as soft money to be used only for party-building activities. Union and corporate donations would not be treated as hard money for use in express advocacy or transfers to Federal candidates. This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a return to the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s, which worked until they were exploited and abused by, I might add, both parties. Nor is this a ban on political speech. There would remain many options. Donors who wanted to give more money for political speech could contribute to third party organizations. I appreciate the legitimate free speech and constitutional concerns many of my colleagues and I have about these kinds of caps. This amendment offers a compromise that addresses the constitutional concerns while moving forward with reform legislation. If the cap were challenged in court within 30 days after taking effect, the cap would be suspended until the conclusion of the court challenge. It is time now to adjust and index hard money contributions to inflation. For an individual, contribution limits would increase, for example, from $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate per election--and so it would go, for PACs and all committees. In future years, all limits would be indexed for inflation. I have heard the argument that raising the hard money limits would give the wealthy too much influence and access. If we cap soft money and do not adjust the hard money limits, we will chase more money into the black hole of third party ads, where the public cannot view the flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the sunlight, into the daylight, where the American people have access to who is giving money and how much. They can decide for themselves if a candidate has been ``bought'' by anyone. Financial disclosure is the core of any campaign finance reform. This amendment would take the rules on broadcast ads that apply now to candidates and extend them to all political broadcast ads. Under current Federal regulations, when a candidate places a political ad with a broadcaster, the broadcaster is required to keep a file on the ad that is open to any member of the public who wants to see it. In that file is a record of the following: The time the spots are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased, and the rates at which the ads were purchased. This information must be recorded immediately and made available for public inspection. Under current Federal regulations, when an interest group places a political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet the same requirements. The public cannot find out: Who bought the ad, when the ad will run, how much time was purchased, and how much was paid for the ad. It is closed from public view. This amendment would require that interest group ads relating to any Federal candidate or issue also must go into the broadcaster's public file. For those types of ads, the broadcaster would be required to record the same information it does for ads by candidates and parties, including the amount spent on the ad. As with candidates and party ads, the information on these political ads would be recorded immediately and made available for public inspection. There would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The broadcaster would simply use the same form already used for candidate and party ads. Full disclosure should apply to a political ad by an interest group just as it does for a political committee or candidate because the objectives, after all, of all the ads are the same. Let me make clear one thing this amendment does not do. It does not require unions, corporations, or any organization to identify individual donors or provide membership lists. This amendment preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to know which groups are attempting to influence an election and the privacy rights of individual donors to an interest group. In conclusion, we have before us a unique opportunity to accomplish something relevant, reasonable, and meaningful. We have an opportunity to restore some of the confidence the American people have lost in their political system. All of us in this noble profession of politics have a responsibility to set high standards in American politics. Improving our system that selects American leaders--who formulate and implement Government policy that frames the governance of our Nation--is a worthy challenge. We can elevate the process and make it better--more open and more accountable--which leads to a more informed public through a more relevant public debate, leading to a more accountable Government. Let us not squander this opportunity or debase our responsibility. Before I yield the floor, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan be allowed to follow me.

Mr. HAGEL. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky and yield my remaining 7 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi who has managed this Agriculture appropriations bill through the high winds and difficult seas over the last few weeks. Some of that was acknowledged this morning. We started out dealing with agriculture, and we have now been dealing with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other important things. I am grateful for his patience, leadership, and diligence to get to this point. This is a very important conference report we take up today. I rise to support the Agriculture appropriations conference report. As has been noted on the floor of the Senate this morning that American agriculture is in trouble. Our American agricultural producers are struggling. I think it is worthy that we examine briefly what has caused this difficulty. Good weather over the last 3 years has led to worldwide record grain yields, which has created a large oversupply and significantly reduced grain prices. Other important causes for these difficult times facing our agricultural producers are: The 2-year Asian economic crisis which has spread throughout the world; the high value of the American dollar versus other currencies; export subsidies and unfair trade practices by our foreign competitors; the lack of meaningful trade and sanctions reform; the lack of real tax and regulatory reform; and, for the last 5 years, the lack of fast-track trade authority for the President. All of these and more are directly responsible for the current situation in American agriculture. I might add, they have nothing to do with our current farm policy, which is known as Freedom to Farm. What I have just registered, what I have just cited--those unpredictables, those uncontrollables--would be here regardless of America's farm policy. It is important to point that out because I have heard some suggest it is America's Freedom to Farm policy that this Congress enacted and this President signed in 1996 that is at the root of this disastrous agricultural situation in which we find ourselves. In fact, it is not. This $69.3 billion bill will assist agricultural producers by providing, among other things, short-term assistance. It includes an $8.7 billion emergency package, and it is important we work our way through this so the American people understand what is included in this package: There is $5.5 billion in agricultural market transition assistance payments that are paid directly to our agricultural producers, to the farmers and the ranchers. This equates to a 100-percent increase from the producers' 1999 payment and puts the money directly in the hands of our producers and certainly does it much faster than supplemental loan deficiency payments. There is $1.2 billion for disaster relief; $475 million in direct payments to soybean and minor oilseed producers; $325 million in livestock feeder assistance; $325 million for livestock producers; $200 million is in the form of assistance to producers due to drought or other natural disasters; $400 million to assist producers in purchasing additional insurance for crops coming up that they will plant early next year for fiscal year 2000; and mandatory price reporting to assist livestock producers in their marketing decisions. While the Agriculture appropriations conference report and emergency assistance package are important and they are very helpful in the short term, we need to look at the long-term solutions: How do we fix this for the long term so we don't keep coming back to Congress year after year after year for more supplemental appropriations? That is what we must stay focused on. We find those long-term solutions in opening up more opportunities for our farmers and our ranchers to sell the products. Our producers need more open markets. While we need to adjust parts of Freedom to Farm and we need to do that to make it work better, the basic underlying principle of Freedom to Farm should be preserved. And the basic underlying principle of Freedom to Farm is plant to the market, let the market decide. In order to become more efficient and to produce for a growing market, we must give the producers the flexibility to grow what they want when they want: Grow for the market, not what the Government dictates or what the Government manipulates. We need to adjust transition payments to make them more useful in times when cash flows are tight, when they are needed, not just arbitrary: Another supplemental appropriation. Payment levels may need to be adjusted annually, that is the way it is, to take into account such things as the value of the U.S. dollar, export opportunities, natural disasters, actual production levels, and other factors. Loan deficiency payments have proven a useful tool for farmers, but we need to build into that more flexibility so producers can quickly respond to changes in the market. The Crop Insurance Program is critical to the future of our ag producers. The Crop Insurance Program needs to be expanded and reformed so producers can be more self-reliant during economic downturns. We need to focus on private-sector solutions rather than public-sector solutions. The United States needs a relevant and a vital trade policy that addresses the challenges of the 21st century. We need WTO accession for China, trade and sanctions reform, and more international food assistance programs. WTO negotiations also need to address unfair manipulation and other trade barriers that hurt America's farmers and ranchers. We are currently working our way through the beef hormone issue. The WTO has consistently come down in favor of the American producer, yet we still find the Europeans throw up artificial trade barriers. These are big issues, important issues. Trade must be a constant. It must be elevated to a priority in the next administration. The next President must put trade on the agenda, and he must lead toward accomplishment of that agenda. As my friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, noted earlier, I, too, am disappointed this conference report does not contain the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd sanctions reform language, which passed this body, as noted by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, 70 to 28--70 votes in favor of lifting unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. I am confident we can move forward on this legislation. We will come back to it when it soon comes, again, to the Senate floor for consideration. The Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd bill would exempt food and medicine from unilateral sanctions and embargoes. It is supported by the American Farm Bureau and the entire American agricultural community. This reform also strengthens the ties among peoples and nations and demonstrates the goodness and the humanitarianism of the American people. It sends a very strong, clear message to our customers and our competitors around the world that our agricultural producers will be consistent and reliable suppliers of quality products. The American agricultural producer can compete with anyone in the world. Passing sanctions reform legislation will open up new markets, and it will allow our agricultural producers to compete in markets around the globe. I am hopeful we will move forward on comprehensive sanctions and trade reform legislation early next year. This must be a priority. It should be a priority. It is a priority, and it is a bipartisan priority. As Senator Durbin mentioned earlier, if you look at those 70 Senators who voted in favor of lifting sanctions on food and medicine, they represented the majority of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties in this body. That is a very clear message that this is a bipartisan issue. We should capture the essence of that bipartisanship and let that lead us next year as we should, and we will, make considerable progress in trade and sanctions reform. Regulations continue to add to the cost of production to farmers and ranchers. Regulatory reform is critical. We need to look at all the regulations currently on the books and make sure they are based on sound science and, lo and behold, common sense. We need to look at tax reform. In 1996 when the Congress passed and the President signed Freedom to Farm, two promises were made by Congress to our agricultural producers: We would comprehensively deal with the important dynamics of tax reform and regulatory reform. We have failed to do so. We have failed to address comprehensive tax reform and regulatory reform, aside from what we have discussed, not dealing with sanctions and trade reform either. We need to look at tax reform. For example, farm and ranch risk management accounts, FARRM accounts, reduction in capital gains rates, elimination of estate taxes, income averaging, and other constructive actions are all measures that take us, move us, get us to where we want to be. This conference report includes an important new provision we have not seen in past Agriculture appropriations bills, the mandatory price reporting provision. This is important for livestock producers. It allows for market transparency, it levels the playing field, and ensures fairness. We also need to look hard at other issues like industry concentration and meat labeling to ensure that markets remain free, fair, and competitive. While we deal with short-term crises, we also need to work consistently, diligently on the long-term improvements focused on trade, and sanctions, and taxes, and regulatory reform, and agricultural policy. This is important legislation we debate today and will vote on this afternoon. It provides much needed assistance at a very critical time in the agricultural community. I hope we will pass this conference report today and the President will sign it, so we can get our farmers and ranchers the assistance they need. Then this body can move on to do the important business of our Nation and the important business of our agricultural community, connected to the total of who we are, as a nation and as a global leader, and that is paying attention to the issues of trade and foreign policy, sanctions reform, and all that is connected to the future for our country and the world as we enter this next millennium. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, what is the objective of a comprehensive test ban treaty? What is the objective of what we are about? The objective is to stop nuclear proliferation. The objective is to make the world safer for mankind. Unfortunately, this noble effort now must be rescued from partisan politics. We are trapped in a political swamp as we attempt to compress a very important debate on a very important issue. A few minutes ago, there was an exchange about timing. We only have a few hours to debate. My goodness, is that any way to responsibly deal with what may, in fact, be the most critical and important vote any of us in this Chamber will ever make? It is not. We cannot have a serious debate about nuclear proliferation when artificial timelines prevent that important debate. Unfortunately, the political environment has captured this issue. Aside from all the technical debate that will go on, as has begun this morning, and rightfully so, about this treaty, this treaty is symbolic. It represents 50 years of America's leadership throughout the world in dealing with our allies and, yes, our adversaries, in trying to curb nuclear proliferation. Much has been said this morning by my distinguished colleagues about our allies, Great Britain and France. They moved forward in good faith last year and ratified this treaty. Consequently, they are dismantling their nuclear testing facilities. What do we say to them if we defeat this treaty? What do we say to the rest of the world, and what is that symbol, what is the message we project? We are far better off to take the time necessary to work our way through the critical questions and issues. This debate needs to be taken down many layers, many levels in the questions that are relevant. We have forced hearings this week in three committees. The committee on which I serve, Foreign Relations, had more than 6 hours of hearings yesterday. They were informative and important. There is a great amount of doubt and question and concern about the governance language in this treaty: Who governs the implementation of this treaty, who is in charge, aside from all the technical questions. We could take days on the provisions for site inspections alone, and we should. What are the consequences of us pulling out of this treaty? I hear from a number of my friends: If it is a bad treaty, we sign it and go ahead, and if the President of the United States says in the supreme national security interests of America we will pull out of the treaty-- my goodness, do we think it is that easy to arbitrarily pull out of a treaty we led for over 50 years under the leadership of President Eisenhower, that was further anchored by the actions of President Kennedy with the first ban on nuclear testing in 1963? Do we think the political environment would be such that we could just arbitrarily pull out when we wanted? Do we not understand the consequences of that? What about side agreements? We learned yesterday, for example, in the Foreign Relations Committee hearings that there are side agreements. That does not mean it is bad, but what are those side agreements? How do they affect us? What is the management? What is the governance? Who makes the deal? Do those side agreements have force behind them? What happens in 10 years when there are new governments? My colleagues understand and share with me the same fundamental responsibility to this country, and that is, America's security is paramount; nothing else is more important. That is our premier responsibility as Senators as we debate this issue. The fundamental principle we must follow is not to jeopardize the security of our people and our country. The U.S. nuclear deterrent has prevented a worldwide conflagration for over 40 years. As former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said yesterday in the hearings, that effective deterrence depends entirely on the assurance that our nuclear arsenal will work when it needs to work. It is a huge issue, a huge question. The safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal, therefore, must be maintained above all. We might be able to do that with computers and other means, other than testing. That may well be feasible. But I want to be assured a lot more than I am now that, in fact, can be done without jeopardizing the security of the United States. We heard much about intelligence reports in all three committees that held hearings this week. The administration says those intelligence reports are not yet complete. Why are we rushing to a vote when we do not have all the intelligence, when we do not have all the information? Why is there this arbitrary test timeline that we must have a vote? What about the next administration? There will be a new administration, Democrat or Republican. I read this morning Donald Trump is interested in a Trump administration. There may be a Jesse Ventura administration, I say to Senator Biden. We do not know.

Mr. HAGEL. Certainly.

Mr. HAGEL. I suspect his contribution would not be relevant to the debate. The very serious fact is, we will have a new administration. Is this treaty, essentially born 50 years ago from Eisenhower forward, relevant to the challenges of today? Is it relevant to the new challenges of this next new century, the new challenges that this new administration, this new President will have to deal with? Are we boxing in this new administration? Shouldn't this new administration coming in, in January 2001, have an opportunity to review arms control, look at what those needs are, what is relevant? The world has changed. It has changed in 10 years. The world used to be rather simple when we took this issue up 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago: Two superpowers, the Soviets, the Americans; they were the ones with the nukes. Therefore, we created a structure, a protocol, a treaty that dealt with that. That has changed. I strongly urge the President of the United States, as I did the other night--telling him directly, and my leader and the Democratic leader, and all of my colleagues--to not allow us to get into a box we cannot get out of and take a vote on Tuesday. It is irresponsible. It will surely go down. There will be consequences for that vote. It is the wrong thing to do for America. It is not responsible governance. What do we do? Why not continue to hold hearings on this very important issue, take this down to as many levels as we need, get the answers? Maybe we have to restructure; I don't know. But the way it is now, we are not prepared to vote. Why not inform the American public? Why not allow the American public to understand what we are doing? Why not allow all of our Senators to understand a little bit more than we do now about this issue? The tough questions must be asked, the consequences played out. We must not allow ourselves to get trapped again in a timeline. I heard this morning, Why not take a vote right after the election next year? That is interesting. Why not float it out? Why not do this up or down? But why force an artificial timeline? If the political environment is not right to have an honest, open, legitimate debate, it is not right. That is a fact of life. But do not rush something that is going to have dire consequences for the future of the world to satisfy some political dynamic or someone's interest in driving a timeline or driving a political determination. That is irresponsible. Regrettably, I must say to my colleagues, if that vote is held on Tuesday, I will have to vote against this treaty. That will be regrettable because I would like to have more time to ask more questions, to understand what we are doing, because I, as do all my colleagues, take this responsibility very seriously. I say again, this vote, if it does come Tuesday or next year or in 2001, may in fact be the most critical vote any of us ever cast. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. I surely will, I say to the Senator.

Mr. HAGEL. That is correct, I say to the Senator. I think it is a wise course of action. I so informed the President the other night at the White House. I so informed my colleagues. I again say, as I did, if I have to vote Tuesday, I will vote against it. That will be regrettable because I believe arms control, the focused management of nuclear proliferation, is a responsibility this country has had. We have taken the lead position on that for 50 years. I am proud of that. You are proud of that. To box ourselves in, surely knowing the impending defeat, I think would be a catastrophe for our leadership in the world.

Mr. HAGEL. I would, sir.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 273, S. 1156.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I take the floor of the Senate tonight to address the same issue that my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, has talked about for the last 30 minutes, and the distinguished senior Senator from Kansas has addressed; that is, the Agriculture appropriations bill. It seems to be rather conflicted. I suspect most people in this country believe in the democratic process. I suspect most people in this country believe the will of the majority and the protection of the minority is rather relevant to our democracy. But we have come upon a fascinating example of that not being the case in this Agriculture appropriations bill. Senator Ashcroft laid it out rather clearly, as did Senator Brownback. This is not a particularly complicated situation. What we have is the will of the majority in the Senate, expressed by a vote of 70 to 28. That is a rather significant majority. As a matter of fact, that is a majority large enough to override a Presidential veto. The will of 70 Senators to support an amendment that obviously 70 Senators thought was important enough to come out and debate and register their vote and their will on, representing the constituencies of 70 Senators, said it rather plainly: We want the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment in the Agriculture appropriations bill. So we went to conference with the House. Guess what. The House conferees not only agreed that the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment lifting sanctions for medicine and food against countries where we have unilateral, arbitrary economic sanctions was a good idea, they actually strengthened the language. The House conferees actually made the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd language stronger. We progress along up until the leadership enters the picture. I might add so there is no mistake about this--and I will try to speak clearly--it was the Republican leadership in the Senate and House that said: No, a few of us do not care for that. So we are going to do something that rarely ever happens, and that is we are going to stop that, you see, because technically we have a process, we are the leaders, and we can strip that out of the appropriations bill. No matter, of course, that 70 U.S. Senators said, ``No, we want that in,'' and the House conferees said, ``No, we want that in; we think it is in the best interests of the U.S. foreign policy and American agriculture.'' Disregard that. That does not count. So what we have is an interesting spectacle of the leadership of intimidation and the intimidation of leadership--not a pretty sight, not a democratic process. We occasionally question why America is beyond concern with the process, with the leadership, with politics. We wonder why. This is a very vivid, clear example of why. We are going through this little mating dance again around here on the budget. I call it a charade. It is a charade. I have even called it dishonest. Some of my colleagues said: Senator Hagel, we do not use that terminology in the Senate. I said: I am sorry, but where I am from, some of the stuff that goes on around here that we think is policy, or we define or defend as a technical adjustment, it is just plain dishonest if you are going to live within the caps. If you are going to spend more than what the caps tell you that we agreed to do, then let's be honest about it. The same thing with this conference committee. There are those among us in the media, across this land, who say we should reform our political process, we should reform Congress. They have a point. But it all starts here. It all starts here. If we cannot be held accountable and responsible enough to work the will of the majority to do the right thing, to be honest, and be open, and be responsible with our governance, with our leadership, with our legislative process, then to what can the American people look? What can they trust? What confidence can they have in their system? This Republic is not going to crumble tomorrow, and it will not crumble next year because of the shenanigans we pull around here. But we will pay a high price one of these days in one of these generations when we continue to define down our expectations and our standards and let a few people, a cabal of a few people take advantage of the system. I am very proud. It is my understanding at this moment that there were two Republican Senators who refused to sign the conference report today on the Agriculture appropriations bill. To them I say thank you. Not only have you done the right thing, but you have shown America and some of us in this body that we, in fact, can do the right thing, and that we are not going to be intimidated by the leadership, by a small cabal of people in charge who hold responsibility. There are consequences to this. There are consequences in our foreign policy and in our agricultural policy because they are all connected. But the consequences will come more directly in the breakdown of confidence and trust in this institution. As that erodes, as that continues to erode, and a few select people in this body play it their way and refuse to open the process, then there will be reform. And if the American people have to keep turning over Congresses to get to leadership--and we all have to take responsibility in this Chamber because we elect the leadership--and if we have to continue to turn over leadership, we will do that to ensure, if nothing else, that we can openly, honestly debate the important, relevant issues for this country that affect the world and affect everybody in this Nation. When those decisions are made and when the will of 70 Senators is abrogated, is hijacked, it is time for some major reform in this body, and I will be one of the leaders to help do that. In conclusion, this should serve as a very clear example of a lot of the nonsense that permeates this process. This is not just about the American farmer or the American rancher. This is far bigger than American agricultural policy and foreign policy and national security and all the interconnects. This is about whether we can trust the process. More basically, why do we even have authorizing committees in this body if the appropriations process is going to make policy because they have the money? Then the leadership, even a smaller group, decides what they want to take out of those decisions, so they pick and choose, and the rest of us, essentially, are superfluous to the process. Why don't we just have 10 Senators? Why not take a couple committee chairmen, the leadership, and the rest of us go home; they can make the decisions. We are walking our way through an early Halloween. We are walking our way through a charade, and we should call it that. And, yes, it is dishonest. I think there are enough of us in this body who are going to say it straight and call it the way we see it. I hope we will come to our senses before we cross a line from which we cannot come back and allow this hijacking of democratic governance, this hijacking of democratic justice to set an even lower standard than what we have been doing this year with the budgets and the constant back and forth of let's not do anything; let's just go home; let's just get out; let's just do enough to get to the next day; let's not take on the real, relevant issues of America; let's not deal with health care; let's not deal with a lot of things. The right way to do this is to come out and debate it, whether it is campaign finance reform or whatever the issue is, debate it, open it up. If you lose, you lose; if you win, you win. That is what America wants. That is what they will demand, and that is what ultimately they will receive. I am sorry I had to take the floor, as did my colleagues tonight, to talk about this. This is not a proud moment for me. It is not a proud moment for this institution. But if there is anything we have in this Nation that must be cherished and nourished and formed and shaped and protected and defended at all costs, it is the institution. It is the process and the institution that allows this self-governance and the freedom to stand on the floor of the Senate, stand anywhere in this Nation and express ourselves, the minority knowing they will be protected and the majority knowing they can count on a fair shake in that process. That ultimately, as we define the process down, is the most important dynamic of who we are as a people and why this Republic has survived for over 200 years. When we discount that, when we discount that currency, when we abridge that responsibility, then we turn our backs on everyone who has sacrificed for the freedom that allows us to do this. We are a better country than that. We are a better people than that. We will rise to the occasion to turn this around and hold on to the one currency that counts in all of our lives, and that is trust. When we debase that trust, we debase the very currency of who we are. I will always throw my confidence, the completeness of who I am and what I represent, behind the good common sense of the American people, and the faith I have in the American people will always dictate the outcome of these kinds of exercises, as it was written, as it was stated, and as it was the vision of the great men who formed this country and wrote this Constitution. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 190, H.J. Res. 34.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives to accompany S. 249 to provide funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth, and for other purposes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.