Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Dodd in introducing the Sanctions Rationalization Act. This bill would grant broad authority to the President to waive unilateral sanctions that no longer make sense and that he determines harm U.S. national interests. Sanctions must remain a policy tool. But sanctions are only effective when they are multilateral. This bill will complete the package of three sanctions reform bills that have been introduced this Congress. Senator Dodd and I are sponsors or cosponsors of each of these three bills. The first of these three sanctions reform bills is S. 757, the Sanctions Policy Reform Act. This legislation, introduced by Senator Lugar would establish a sensible process for the enactment of future unilateral economic sanctions by either the President or the Congress. Among its safeguards, the Lugar bill would require a cost/benefit analysis and would require a study on the likelihood that the proposed sanctions would achieve their policy goals. It would also sunset all unilateral sanctions after two years unless reauthorized by Congress. The Lugar bill does not undo any existing sanctions, with one exception. It would make permanent the President's ability to waive the Glenn amendment for U.S. national security reasons. The Glenn amendment as originally drafted puts permanent unilateral sanctions on any country that tests a nuclear device. I introduced the second bill, which is S. 327, the Food and Medicine Sanctions Relief Act. Senator Dodd is the lead cosponsor on that bill. Food and medicine are basic humanitarian needs. As a matter of policy, food and medicine should not be included in unilateral sanctions. The President made a good first step in addressing this issue yesterday when he removed most, but not all, food and humanitarian goods from sanctions on Iran, Sudan and Libya. He did not lift restrictions on financing for agricultural sales, nor did he lift food and medicine sanctions on several other nations. He could not take these two additional steps because he is restricted from doing so by other legislation. My bill, S. 327, would enable him to adopt a comprehensive policy of exempting food and medicine from unilateral sanctions. The bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today would also grant the President much broader authority to protect U.S. interests by waiving unilateral sanctions. The Sanctions Rationalization Act allows the President, with Congressional review, to ``delay, suspend or terminate'' any unilateral economic sanction if he determines that it ``does not serve U.S. national interests.'' A Presidential waiver under the Act cannot go into effect for 30 days. This gives the Congress ample time to consider the Presidential action. The bill establishes expedited procedures to ensure that Congress would have a chance to disapprove the Presidential waiver if the action is unwise. Finally, the legislation restricts the use of this Presidential waiver authority in specific cases. The President cannot waive sanctions that are multilateral rather than unilateral. He is also restricted from waiving sanctions based on health or safety concerns, treaty obligations, and specific trade laws enacted to remedy unfair trade practices or market disruptions. As a nation, we are letting unilateral sanctions isolate ourselves. Let me demonstrate why: A CRS report on January 22, 1998 listed a total of 97 unilateral sanctions now in place. A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that from 1993-1996, the U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times against 35 countries. These 35 nations make up 42% of world population and 19% of world's $790 billion export market. A study by the International Institute of Economics estimates that in 1995 alone unilateral sanctions cost Americans $15-20 billion in lost exports . . . which resulted in 200,000 lost jobs. The National Foreign Trade Council has identified 41 separate legislative statutes on the books that either require or authorize the imposition of unilateral sanctions. Repeated use of sanctions undermines confidence in America as a reliable supplier. Even after sanctions are lifted, Americans find it difficult or impossible to regain export markets. Mr. President, each of the three bills I mentioned addresses an important feature of ending the overuse of unilateral economic sanctions. The Lugar bill would create a process for producing more effective sanctions policies for the future. The Hagel bill would exempt food and medicine from all unilateral economic sanctions. The Dodd bill is a final, critical reform. It would allow the President, with congressional review, to waive those sanctions laws that have become outdated and no longer serve U.S. national interests. Again, I congratulate my colleague from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him in introducing the Sanctions Rationalization Act.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Dodd in introducing the Sanctions Rationalization Act. This bill would grant broad authority to the President to waive unilateral sanctions that no longer make sense and that he determines harm U.S. national interests. Sanctions must remain a policy tool. But sanctions are only effective when they are multilateral. This bill will complete the package of three sanctions reform bills that have been introduced this Congress. Senator Dodd and I are sponsors or cosponsors of each of these three bills. The first of these three sanctions reform bills is S. 757, the Sanctions Policy Reform Act. This legislation, introduced by Senator Lugar would establish a sensible process for the enactment of future unilateral economic sanctions by either the President or the Congress. Among its safeguards, the Lugar bill would require a cost/benefit analysis and would require a study on the likelihood that the proposed sanctions would achieve their policy goals. It would also sunset all unilateral sanctions after two years unless reauthorized by Congress. The Lugar bill does not undo any existing sanctions, with one exception. It would make permanent the President's ability to waive the Glenn amendment for U.S. national security reasons. The Glenn amendment as originally drafted puts permanent unilateral sanctions on any country that tests a nuclear device. I introduced the second bill, which is S. 327, the Food and Medicine Sanctions Relief Act. Senator Dodd is the lead cosponsor on that bill. Food and medicine are basic humanitarian needs. As a matter of policy, food and medicine should not be included in unilateral sanctions. The President made a good first step in addressing this issue yesterday when he removed most, but not all, food and humanitarian goods from sanctions on Iran, Sudan and Libya. He did not lift restrictions on financing for agricultural sales, nor did he lift food and medicine sanctions on several other nations. He could not take these two additional steps because he is restricted from doing so by other legislation. My bill, S. 327, would enable him to adopt a comprehensive policy of exempting food and medicine from unilateral sanctions. The bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today would also grant the President much broader authority to protect U.S. interests by waiving unilateral sanctions. The Sanctions Rationalization Act allows the President, with Congressional review, to ``delay, suspend or terminate'' any unilateral economic sanction if he determines that it ``does not serve U.S. national interests.'' A Presidential waiver under the Act cannot go into effect for 30 days. This gives the Congress ample time to consider the Presidential action. The bill establishes expedited procedures to ensure that Congress would have a chance to disapprove the Presidential waiver if the action is unwise. Finally, the legislation restricts the use of this Presidential waiver authority in specific cases. The President cannot waive sanctions that are multilateral rather than unilateral. He is also restricted from waiving sanctions based on health or safety concerns, treaty obligations, and specific trade laws enacted to remedy unfair trade practices or market disruptions. As a nation, we are letting unilateral sanctions isolate ourselves. Let me demonstrate why: A CRS report on January 22, 1998 listed a total of 97 unilateral sanctions now in place. A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that from 1993-1996, the U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times against 35 countries. These 35 nations make up 42% of world population and 19% of world's $790 billion export market. A study by the International Institute of Economics estimates that in 1995 alone unilateral sanctions cost Americans $15-20 billion in lost exports . . . which resulted in 200,000 lost jobs. The National Foreign Trade Council has identified 41 separate legislative statutes on the books that either require or authorize the imposition of unilateral sanctions. Repeated use of sanctions undermines confidence in America as a reliable supplier. Even after sanctions are lifted, Americans find it difficult or impossible to regain export markets. Mr. President, each of the three bills I mentioned addresses an important feature of ending the overuse of unilateral economic sanctions. The Lugar bill would create a process for producing more effective sanctions policies for the future. The Hagel bill would exempt food and medicine from all unilateral economic sanctions. The Dodd bill is a final, critical reform. It would allow the President, with congressional review, to waive those sanctions laws that have become outdated and no longer serve U.S. national interests. Again, I congratulate my colleague from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him in introducing the Sanctions Rationalization Act.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Federally Impacted School Improvement Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to renew and enhance the partnership between the federal government and schools located on or around Indian reservations and military bases. For almost fifty years Congress has provided financial assistance to school districts impacted by a federal presence. Up until 1994, Congress also provided funding to help these communities defray the cost of building and repairing their schools. The loss of this particular revenue over the last five years, combined with the continued under-funding for almost 15 years of the impact aid program in general, has left school districts that serve military and Indian children scrambling to finance their routine costs. As a result, many of these schools now have buildings that are antiquated, overcrowded and compromise the health and safety of their students. The Federally Impacted School Improvement Act takes a step toward correcting this situation by providing matching grants that impacted schools can use to address their most pressing modernization needs. This Act authorizes a federal appropriation of $50 million for each of the next five fiscal years for impact aid school construction and repair. Forty-five percent of the funds appropriated under the bill go to Indian lands. Another forty-five percent is dedicated to military schools. The final ten percent will be reserved for emergency situations. In order to make limited federal funds go farther, our bill calls for local communities to contribute their share to this effort. Schools and communities will have to match the federal grants on all but the 10% appropriated for emergencies. This is done to ensure that all--or at least more--impacted schools will have the opportunity to use these new grants to improve their facilities. The federal government cannot and should not be all things to all people. However, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that highly impacted school districts, such as Bellevue and Santee, Nebraska, are not shortchanged. The hardships faced by our military personnel, their families and individuals living on Indian reservations are well known. Their children deserve no less than the best educational facilities. The Federally Impacted School Improvement Act helps to meet our commitment to schools and children impacted by a federal presence. It makes good use of our limited federal resources. It embodies what we should be doing more of--building partnerships between local communities, taxpayers and government in order to strengthen our schools. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I also request unanimous consent that the bill and a letter sent to me by the Northern Nebraska Native American Consortium be placed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Federally Impacted School Improvement Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to renew and enhance the partnership between the federal government and schools located on or around Indian reservations and military bases. For almost fifty years Congress has provided financial assistance to school districts impacted by a federal presence. Up until 1994, Congress also provided funding to help these communities defray the cost of building and repairing their schools. The loss of this particular revenue over the last five years, combined with the continued under-funding for almost 15 years of the impact aid program in general, has left school districts that serve military and Indian children scrambling to finance their routine costs. As a result, many of these schools now have buildings that are antiquated, overcrowded and compromise the health and safety of their students. The Federally Impacted School Improvement Act takes a step toward correcting this situation by providing matching grants that impacted schools can use to address their most pressing modernization needs. This Act authorizes a federal appropriation of $50 million for each of the next five fiscal years for impact aid school construction and repair. Forty-five percent of the funds appropriated under the bill go to Indian lands. Another forty-five percent is dedicated to military schools. The final ten percent will be reserved for emergency situations. In order to make limited federal funds go farther, our bill calls for local communities to contribute their share to this effort. Schools and communities will have to match the federal grants on all but the 10% appropriated for emergencies. This is done to ensure that all--or at least more--impacted schools will have the opportunity to use these new grants to improve their facilities. The federal government cannot and should not be all things to all people. However, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that highly impacted school districts, such as Bellevue and Santee, Nebraska, are not shortchanged. The hardships faced by our military personnel, their families and individuals living on Indian reservations are well known. Their children deserve no less than the best educational facilities. The Federally Impacted School Improvement Act helps to meet our commitment to schools and children impacted by a federal presence. It makes good use of our limited federal resources. It embodies what we should be doing more of--building partnerships between local communities, taxpayers and government in order to strengthen our schools. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I also request unanimous consent that the bill and a letter sent to me by the Northern Nebraska Native American Consortium be placed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank as well Senator Murkowski. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleague and friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and other colleagues in introducing the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999. We offer this legislation because we believe it is time that Congress take a new, bipartisan approach to dealing with the issue of global climate change. This legislation turns the debate away from unachievable, U.N.- mandated, arbitrary, short-term targets and timetables as dictated by the Kyoto protocol toward a long-term strategy that focuses on sound science, increased research and development, incentives for voluntary action, and public-private technological initiatives that are market driven and technology based. Twenty-first century technologies, American ingenuity, and public- private cooperation--not U.N.-mandated energy rationing--should be, in fact, the focus of climate change efforts in the Congress. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join this effort. Mr. President, this has never been a debate about who is for or against the environment. This has never been a partisan issue. I have not met one Member of the Senate--Republican or Democrat--who wants to leave their children a dirty and uninhabitable environment. We all agree that we have a responsibility to protect our environment. What this debate should be about is bringing some common sense--common sense--to this issue. This bill that we are introducing today--the Energy and Climate Policy Act--brings some common sense to the issue of climate change. Senator Murkowski laid out a number of the more specific parts of our bill--accountability for one. We put this responsibility in the Department of Energy where there is someone ``in charge.'' Presently we have accountability for global climate change spread throughout the Government. It is in the White House. It is in the EPA. It is in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, and Energy. All of these organizations have their tentacles wrapped around this issue. So with this, we will focus on accountability, responsibility. Let's get the job done. Second, this bill moves the current focus of climate change policy away from short-term, draconian energy rationing and cost increases mandated by the United Nations Kyoto protocol toward a long-term domestic commitment to research and development. As Senator Murkowski pointed out, it adds significant Government funding in a private-public enterprise over the next 10 years. It focuses on real science, sound science. Third, this bill continues Congress' commitment to supporting voluntary energy efforts to reduce, sequester, or avoid manmade greenhouse gas emissions. It does so by strengthening current law--not by creating new international, bureaucratic, governmental regimes in which we will all be accountable. In short, among other things this bill does, we look at the entire picture--the consequences of our actions. That means including activities that naturally lower the levels of greenhouse gas emissions. This bill also addresses the issue of whether such voluntary efforts are ``real and verifiable''--Who enforces these kinds of mandates?--the role of agriculture, the role of industry, business, labor, and long- term standard of living consequences: How competitive are our products in the world markets?--market driven, technology based. We build on what is already the foundation of this great, free land and this great, free market economy. This bill also allows all of our enterprises in this country to plan for the future and build commitments into outyear planning and investment decisions. Kyoto doesn't talk about that. Who finances these efforts? This is the best way to deal with the issue of climate change: a long-term commitment based on American ingenuity, exports, scientific certainty, 21st century technology, and market principles. By doing these things we can walk away from the disastrous path that this administration and the Kyoto protocol would lead us and focus our efforts instead on a positive, bipartisan, achievable commonsense approach. I hope my colleagues will take a look at what we are introducing today. It is a bipartisan bill. It does make sense. I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer and others this year and into next year in crafting something that is achievable and workable and good for this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank as well Senator Murkowski. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleague and friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and other colleagues in introducing the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999. We offer this legislation because we believe it is time that Congress take a new, bipartisan approach to dealing with the issue of global climate change. This legislation turns the debate away from unachievable, U.N.- mandated, arbitrary, short-term targets and timetables as dictated by the Kyoto protocol toward a long-term strategy that focuses on sound science, increased research and development, incentives for voluntary action, and public-private technological initiatives that are market driven and technology based. Twenty-first century technologies, American ingenuity, and public- private cooperation--not U.N.-mandated energy rationing--should be, in fact, the focus of climate change efforts in the Congress. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join this effort. Mr. President, this has never been a debate about who is for or against the environment. This has never been a partisan issue. I have not met one Member of the Senate--Republican or Democrat--who wants to leave their children a dirty and uninhabitable environment. We all agree that we have a responsibility to protect our environment. What this debate should be about is bringing some common sense--common sense--to this issue. This bill that we are introducing today--the Energy and Climate Policy Act--brings some common sense to the issue of climate change. Senator Murkowski laid out a number of the more specific parts of our bill--accountability for one. We put this responsibility in the Department of Energy where there is someone ``in charge.'' Presently we have accountability for global climate change spread throughout the Government. It is in the White House. It is in the EPA. It is in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, and Energy. All of these organizations have their tentacles wrapped around this issue. So with this, we will focus on accountability, responsibility. Let's get the job done. Second, this bill moves the current focus of climate change policy away from short-term, draconian energy rationing and cost increases mandated by the United Nations Kyoto protocol toward a long-term domestic commitment to research and development. As Senator Murkowski pointed out, it adds significant Government funding in a private-public enterprise over the next 10 years. It focuses on real science, sound science. Third, this bill continues Congress' commitment to supporting voluntary energy efforts to reduce, sequester, or avoid manmade greenhouse gas emissions. It does so by strengthening current law--not by creating new international, bureaucratic, governmental regimes in which we will all be accountable. In short, among other things this bill does, we look at the entire picture--the consequences of our actions. That means including activities that naturally lower the levels of greenhouse gas emissions. This bill also addresses the issue of whether such voluntary efforts are ``real and verifiable''--Who enforces these kinds of mandates?--the role of agriculture, the role of industry, business, labor, and long- term standard of living consequences: How competitive are our products in the world markets?--market driven, technology based. We build on what is already the foundation of this great, free land and this great, free market economy. This bill also allows all of our enterprises in this country to plan for the future and build commitments into outyear planning and investment decisions. Kyoto doesn't talk about that. Who finances these efforts? This is the best way to deal with the issue of climate change: a long-term commitment based on American ingenuity, exports, scientific certainty, 21st century technology, and market principles. By doing these things we can walk away from the disastrous path that this administration and the Kyoto protocol would lead us and focus our efforts instead on a positive, bipartisan, achievable commonsense approach. I hope my colleagues will take a look at what we are introducing today. It is a bipartisan bill. It does make sense. I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer and others this year and into next year in crafting something that is achievable and workable and good for this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to recall a towering public servant, Senator Roman L. Hruska, who spent 22 years of his life in this body and who died yesterday at Omaha, NE, at the age of 94. Senator Hruska served with my friend, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. In a day when some might question the morality of public service, the civility of public service, the genuineness of public service, and the goodness of public service, they did not know Senator Roman Hruska. Senator Hruska was one of 11 children, born in David City, NE, 94 years ago. His father had emigrated from Czechoslovakia, and moved his family to Omaha where he felt they would have a better opportunity to get an education and a better opportunity for a better life. Senator Hruska's father was a teacher. Senator Hruska went on through public schools in Nebraska, attended a number of graduate schools, the University of Chicago, and obtained his law degree in Nebraska. He started a law practice in south Omaha. When there became a vacancy on the Douglas County board of commissioners in Omaha, NE, his fellow citizens came to him and said, ``Will you serve for one term?'' That one term began in 1944. A year later, he became chairman of the Douglas County board of commissioners, and until 1952 he served the Greater Omaha area and the State of Nebraska with great distinction. In 1952, a House seat opened up. It was the seat of Howard Buffett. Mr. President, that name ``Buffett'' may ring a bell. Howard Buffett was the father of Warren Buffett. Howard Buffett decided not to run for reelection. Again, Roman Hruska's friends and colleagues said, ``Will you run for Congress?'' Roman Hruska said, ``Well, I will do that for a short period of time.'' Roman Hruska was overwhelmingly elected to the Congress in 1952. Two years later, the Senate seat opened and, again, the same people asked Roman Hruska to serve. He ran for the Senate in 1954 and never looked back. He retired from the Senate in 1976. I recall my first exposure to Senator Hruska as a young chief of staff to Congressman John Y. McCollister in the early 1970s. I would come to the Senate once or twice a week to get a delegation letter signed by Senator Hruska and then Senator Curtis. Senator Hruska would see me occasionally standing outside a hearing room and would never fail to accord me not only some recognition, which as we know around here does not always happen with junior staffers, but he was beyond gracious. He always had time for young people, always had time to talk a little bit about what we thought and what was on our minds. I really came to cherish those times when I had an opportunity to come over and see Senator Hruska. Senator Hruska was often in meetings, I say to Senator Hollings, with some of Senator Hollings' favorite colleagues, such as Senator Goldwater, Senator Eastland, Senator Long. As a young staffer, I would be invited in to the outer ring of those distinguished United States Senators and would stand and watch and listen. Senator Hruska would never fail to introduce me to his colleagues and make me feel not only welcome but a part of Government, a part of what he was doing. The dignity that Senator Hruska brought to his service is something well remembered by not just those of us who were privileged to have some relationship but all who served with Senator Hruska. He made this body a better body. He made America stronger. He believed in things. Senator Hruska did not believe in governance by way of calibration of the polls. You knew where Senator Hruska was and why. He was always a gentleman--always a gentleman. He would debate the issues straight up. He won most of the time; he lost his share. But the relationships that Senator Hruska developed and the respect that underpinned his service is rather uncommon. We are all better for it. America is stronger for it. Nebraska loses a very wise counselor. America loses a great public servant. When I ran for the Senate in 1996, one of the first people I went to see was Senator Hruska. The advice he gave me was consistent with his service and his life. He said, ``Chuck, I would not feel competent to judge or give you counsel on the issues of our day, but I will tell you this: Play it straight, say it straight, respect your colleagues and respect yourself, but most important, respect the institution of the U.S. Congress and always understand the high privilege it is to be part of that great body.'' He was much too modest to go beyond what he gave me as good, solid advice on issues, but I can tell you that on the big issues over the last 3 years, not only I, but many of my colleagues, have constantly gone back to Roman Hruska and asked for his judgment and his thoughts. He will be greatly missed. I say to Senator Hollings, I will leave these remarks on behalf of your former colleague and friend and my friend, Senator Roman Hruska, by referring to Senator Hruska the way your former colleague, Everett Dirksen, once referred to Roman Hruska, and that is: A salute to the noblest Roman of them all--Roman Hruska.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues this morning in introducing this joint resolution because it is the right thing to do, it is the responsible thing to do. Our military efforts and our political will must be consistent with and commensurate with our military and political objectives. That is the essence of what this debate is about. I happen to believe that the Balkans are in the national security interests of this country for many reasons: Our relationship with NATO, the stability of Central and Eastern Europe; the next ring out is the stability of the Baltics, central Asia, Turkey. So in my mind it is rather clear that we do have a national security interest here. What this resolution is about is cutting through the fog of who is to blame, the miscalculation, mistakes up/down. That must be set aside. What we need to remember is that we are engaged in a war. We must stay focused on this commitment and have the resolution and the will to achieve the purpose which we began a month ago. Wars--political, military calculations are imperfect. If we believe-- and I do; I believe our 18 NATO allies do believe --that this is the right thing to do, then we must commit ourselves to achieving this most important objective. That means the American people must first understand what our national security interests are, the Congress must lead with the President, and we must be unified to accomplish this goal. Surely, one of the lessons of Vietnam was that not only are long, confusing wars not sustainable in democracies, but we also learned, as Colin Powell laid out very clearly the last time that we dispatched our military might, that the doctrine of military force is very simple: Maximum amount of power, minimum amount of time. Time is not on our side here, Mr. President. Time is not on our side. The longer this goes without a resolution, the more difficult it will become and the more likely it will be that the resolution, the outcome, will be some kind of a half-baked deal that will resolve nothing; so as we began this noble effort, we will end with no nobility and no achievement as to making the world better and more stable and more secure. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It is far beyond that. I think that is well represented by the bipartisanship of this resolution. There is another consequence that flows from what we are now engaged in, and that is how we will respond to future security challenges. And just as important as that link is how others around the world will measure our response, measure our will, measure our commitment to doing the right thing. History has taught us very clearly that when you defer the tough decisions, things do not get better; they get worse. And the more you try and appease the Milosevics of the world, things get worse, more people die, more commitment must be made later. That is surely a lesson of history. The time is now past whether we are committed to do this or not. That debate was a month ago. What we must do now is come together in a unified effort to win this, to achieve our political and military goals, stop the slaughter, stop the butchery, allow the people of Kosovo to go back into their homes, maintain the stability of that part of the world, and allow for a political resolution to develop--not one that we dictate, not one that NATO dictates, but the people of the Balkans. My colleagues this morning have referred to the outer rings of consequences here, the outer rings of instability. I believe that if this effort is not successful, not only are you destabilizing Central and Eastern Europe, you are taking away the opportunities those nations of Central and Eastern Europe have now, and the former republics of the Socialist Soviet Republic, for a chance to develop a democracy and individual liberties and a free market system, because you have destabilized the area for no other reason than you have brought a million refugees, displaced persons, into that part of the world where those nations and the infrastructures of those nations cannot possibly deal with that and, hence, destabilizing the very infrastructure we are trying to help. There are so many, many consequences that are attached to this one effort. I hope this resolution makes very clear, on a bipartisan basis, what we, as a Nation, as a member of NATO, as a member of the civilized world have at stake here and why it is important that we win this war. And I call it a war because it is a war. I hope that the President of the United States will provide the kind of leadership that this Nation is going to need to connect the national security interests not just at the immediate time in that part of the world, but for our long-term national security interests not just in that part of the world, but all parts of the world. The President must lead. If the President wishes to come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war, that should be entertained and debated and carefully considered. The time for nibbling around the edges here is gone. And we not only do a great disservice to the men and women that we asked to fight this war, but to our democracy and all of the civilized world if we do not do the right thing. History will judge us harshly, as it should, if we allow this to continue, what is going on in the Balkans today, and do not stop it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues this morning in introducing this joint resolution because it is the right thing to do, it is the responsible thing to do. Our military efforts and our political will must be consistent with and commensurate with our military and political objectives. That is the essence of what this debate is about. I happen to believe that the Balkans are in the national security interests of this country for many reasons: Our relationship with NATO, the stability of Central and Eastern Europe; the next ring out is the stability of the Baltics, central Asia, Turkey. So in my mind it is rather clear that we do have a national security interest here. What this resolution is about is cutting through the fog of who is to blame, the miscalculation, mistakes up/down. That must be set aside. What we need to remember is that we are engaged in a war. We must stay focused on this commitment and have the resolution and the will to achieve the purpose which we began a month ago. Wars--political, military calculations are imperfect. If we believe-- and I do; I believe our 18 NATO allies do believe --that this is the right thing to do, then we must commit ourselves to achieving this most important objective. That means the American people must first understand what our national security interests are, the Congress must lead with the President, and we must be unified to accomplish this goal. Surely, one of the lessons of Vietnam was that not only are long, confusing wars not sustainable in democracies, but we also learned, as Colin Powell laid out very clearly the last time that we dispatched our military might, that the doctrine of military force is very simple: Maximum amount of power, minimum amount of time. Time is not on our side here, Mr. President. Time is not on our side. The longer this goes without a resolution, the more difficult it will become and the more likely it will be that the resolution, the outcome, will be some kind of a half-baked deal that will resolve nothing; so as we began this noble effort, we will end with no nobility and no achievement as to making the world better and more stable and more secure. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It is far beyond that. I think that is well represented by the bipartisanship of this resolution. There is another consequence that flows from what we are now engaged in, and that is how we will respond to future security challenges. And just as important as that link is how others around the world will measure our response, measure our will, measure our commitment to doing the right thing. History has taught us very clearly that when you defer the tough decisions, things do not get better; they get worse. And the more you try and appease the Milosevics of the world, things get worse, more people die, more commitment must be made later. That is surely a lesson of history. The time is now past whether we are committed to do this or not. That debate was a month ago. What we must do now is come together in a unified effort to win this, to achieve our political and military goals, stop the slaughter, stop the butchery, allow the people of Kosovo to go back into their homes, maintain the stability of that part of the world, and allow for a political resolution to develop--not one that we dictate, not one that NATO dictates, but the people of the Balkans. My colleagues this morning have referred to the outer rings of consequences here, the outer rings of instability. I believe that if this effort is not successful, not only are you destabilizing Central and Eastern Europe, you are taking away the opportunities those nations of Central and Eastern Europe have now, and the former republics of the Socialist Soviet Republic, for a chance to develop a democracy and individual liberties and a free market system, because you have destabilized the area for no other reason than you have brought a million refugees, displaced persons, into that part of the world where those nations and the infrastructures of those nations cannot possibly deal with that and, hence, destabilizing the very infrastructure we are trying to help. There are so many, many consequences that are attached to this one effort. I hope this resolution makes very clear, on a bipartisan basis, what we, as a Nation, as a member of NATO, as a member of the civilized world have at stake here and why it is important that we win this war. And I call it a war because it is a war. I hope that the President of the United States will provide the kind of leadership that this Nation is going to need to connect the national security interests not just at the immediate time in that part of the world, but for our long-term national security interests not just in that part of the world, but all parts of the world. The President must lead. If the President wishes to come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war, that should be entertained and debated and carefully considered. The time for nibbling around the edges here is gone. And we not only do a great disservice to the men and women that we asked to fight this war, but to our democracy and all of the civilized world if we do not do the right thing. History will judge us harshly, as it should, if we allow this to continue, what is going on in the Balkans today, and do not stop it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank my colleagues, Mr. President, for their attention. Since there are no other Senators in the Chamber, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I will object to further consideration of these measures at this time.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I understand there are now two bills at the desk due for their second readings.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action. The leader has announced that there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. So any votes ordered today will be postponed to occur on Tuesday at a time to be determined by the two leaders. It is hoped that the conferees on the budget resolution will be able to complete their work early this week so the Senate may begin consideration of the budget conference report and have a final vote by Thursday.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to address my thoughts on the situation in Kosovo. This is a very complicated and dangerous issue. There are no good alternatives, there are no good options, there are no good solutions. I have listened with great interest and great respect to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the issue. Their perspectives have been important, they have been enlightening. The threads of who we are as human beings--in America's case, as leaders of the world, as leaders of NATO--are intertwined in this very complicated morass that we call the Kosovo issue. With that said, I don't believe America can stand by and not be part of a unified NATO response to the continued slaughter in the Balkans. I say that mainly for three reasons. First, the very real potential for this crisis widening and deepening is immediate and there will be consequences. If this goes unchecked and unstopped there is the real risk of pulling in other nations into an already very dangerous and complicated situation. I believe if this goes unchecked and unstopped we run the very real risk of the southern flank of NATO coming unhinged. We are on the border now of Macedonia, Macedonia being on the border of Greece. Second, the humanitarian disaster that would result if NATO stood by and did nothing would be immense. The consequences of that humanitarian disaster would move up into Western Europe; nations will take issue and sides against one another in Europe. This would have consequences in the Muslim world. The humanitarian element of this, as much as the geopolitical strategic elements involved in this equation, are real. There would be tens of thousands of refugees pouring into nations all over Western Europe. This would further exaggerate the ethnic and the religious tensions that exist today. The third reason I believe that the United States cannot stand aside and not be part of any NATO activity to stop the butchery in Kosovo is because if the United States is the only NATO member who refuses to deal with this problem--all other NATO members are committed to deal with this problem-- if we are the only NATO member not part of this effort, it surely will be the beginning of the unraveling of NATO. If NATO does not deal with this crisis in the middle of Europe, then what is the purpose of NATO? What is the relevancy of NATO? I have heard the questions, arguments, the debate, the issues raised about NATO being a defensive organization, the very legitimate questions regarding acts of war, invading sovereign nations. These are all important and relevant questions. However, I think there is a more relevant question: What do we use the forces of good for, the forces that represent the best of mankind, if we are going to be held captive to a definition that was written 50 years ago? Every individual, every organization, every effort in life must be relevant to the challenge at hand. The consequences of the United States not being part of NATO in this particular effort would be disastrous. America and NATO's credibility are on the line here. I suggest to some of my colleagues who are engaged in this debate, where were they last fall? Where were they when Ambassador Holbrooke reached an agreement with President Milosevic in October? At that time, the United States and all nations in NATO gave their commitment that there would be a NATO military response if Milosevic did not comply with the agreement that he made on behalf of NATO with Ambassador Holbrooke. Part of the debate we are having now--if not all of it--should have been done last fall. To come in now after the administration and our NATO partners are trying to bring together some peaceful resolution using the leverage of NATO firepower and the leverage of military intervention, for the Congress now to come in and undermine that is not the right way to have the Congress participate in its constitutional responsibility to help form foreign policy. However, the President of the United States must take the lead here. I, too, have been disappointed in the President not coming forward to explain, to educate, on this issue. If the President feels this is relevant and important to America's interests, the President must come forward and explain that to the American people. He has thus far not done that. I understand that may be done today or tomorrow. I talked to Secretary Albright Sunday night and encouraged Secretary Albright, as I have others, to encourage the President to do that. Only the President can lead. Only the President can make the case as to why this is important for our country and explain the consequences of the United States doing nothing. The President must come before the Nation and explain why this military intervention in Kosovo is relevant and important, and why the very significant risk of life is worth it, why the significant risk of life is worth it. I also want to point out that I have heard an awful lot of debate and conversation that we, the United States, would take on Milosevic. It is not just the United States. It is our 15--actually 18--other partners in NATO. I might add, too, that the Europeans have stepped into this with rather direct action and a call for arms in using and committing their ground troops and other military assets. So it is not the United States against Milosevic. It is NATO; it is the forces of good. We must not be confused by that difference. The President has to explain all of this to the American public. Yes, there are great uncertainties and great risks at stake. But to do nothing would create a far worse risk for Europe, the United States, NATO, and I believe all over the world, because the United States' commitment and work and credibility is being watched very carefully by Saddam Hussein, the North Koreans, and others who would wish the United States and our allies ill. Actions have consequences. Nonactions have consequences. Mr. President, history will judge us harshly if we do not take action to stop this rolling genocide. As complicated as this is, I hope that as we debate this through today, my colleagues will support the President on his course of action. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 5 minutes from the time of the Democratic side.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act, and to thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, for his continued leadership on this issue--not today, not last year, but over a sustained period of time--to help educate America as to why this issue is so important to our future. I thank the cosponsor of this bill, Senator Inouye from Hawaii, who has joined over the years with Senator Cochran in leading the debate and, hopefully, moving this body to a decisive action today on passing the National Missile Defense Act. Mr. President, the security of the American people is the first and most important responsibility of the National Government. One of the primary threats facing our national security in the 21st century is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advanced, sophisticated missile technology. Surveys show that many Americans think our Armed Forces can shoot down any missile fired at the United States today. As the debate has pointed out over the last few days, that, in fact, is not the case; it is a myth. We don't have a missile defense system today, we won't have a missile defense system tomorrow, and we won't have a missile defense system next year. Yet the nations who are developing their own weapons of mass destruction are not waiting. Last year, two new countries entered the nuclear club, India and Pakistan. Other nations whose motives are less than friendly toward the United States and our allies are aggressively pursuing these weapons and the ability to launch, the ability to deliver, a nuclear weapon. As technology spreads throughout the world, the threat increases not only from rogue states but also from terrorist organizations. For years, America was assured by our intelligence agencies that the ability to strike the U.S. mainland by any rogue state was years away and that we would easily have enough time to develop a new missile defense system before that possibility would occur. Last July, a bipartisan commission headed by the distinguished former Secretary of Defense, former Chief of Staff to the President, former Member of the House of Representatives, Don Rumsfeld, sounded an alarm: All was not quiet on the ballistic missile front. The Rumsfeld Commission examined the emerging and current ballistic missile threat to the United States. As Secretary Rumsfeld testified last October before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: We concluded unanimously that we are now in an environment of little or no warning. The Rumsfeld Commission report contains several alarming conclusions. One, Russia and China continue to pose threats. Both possess intercontinental ballistic missile capability of reaching the United States mainland. We must be prepared for the possibility of an accidental launch--an accidental launch. In addition, and even more deadly in terms of the threat it poses, both Russia and China have emerged as major suppliers of technology to a number of rogue nations and other countries. Two, the Rumsfeld Commission found that North Korea and Iran could each pose a threat to the United States within 5 years of a decision to do so. Three, Iraq was estimated to be certainly within 10 years of posing a threat. Whether we have been effective at limiting this development with our airstrikes is unknown in Iraq because Iraq is now able to continue its work without the oversight of UNSCOM inspectors. These nations are not isolated; they work together. As Secretary Rumsfeld stated with regard to North Korea: They are very, very active marketing ballistic missile technologies. Iran alone received technology assistance from Russia, China, and North Korea, which gives it a wider array of options. And perhaps one of most striking comments made by Secretary Rumsfeld in his testimony in October was one that rang true with plain, straightforward common sense. Again I quote Secretary Rumsfeld: We have concluded that there will be surprises [deadly surprises]. It is a big world, it is a complicated world, and deception and denial are extensive. The surprise to me is not that there are and will be surprises, but that we are surprised that there are surprises. The Rumsfeld Commission report was greeted with some skepticism by the intelligence community. Then on October 31 of last year, the myth that technology was years away was shattered when North Korea launched a Taepo Dong I missile, a three-stage rocket, over Japan and into the Pacific. This is a missile that, with upgrades, could have delivered a small payload, a nuclear payload, to Hawaii or Alaska. We know that the North Koreans are in the advanced stage of developing a Taepo Dong I intercontinental missile with the capability of delivering a nuclear payload to the American interior. Finally, last month the CIA reversed itself saying the threat was real, imminent, and very dangerous. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CIA Director George Tenet stated: I can hardly overstate my concern about North Korea. In nearly all respects, the situation there has become more volatile and more unpredictable. Why has it taken us this long to wake up to the threats facing our Nation? How many more intelligence reports and missile test firings do we need? Vast oceans in time protected America at the beginning of World War II. Oceans in time will not protect America today. Time has run out. I was very pleased to see news reports this morning, Mr. President, that President Clinton has dropped his threat now to veto this bill. However, the administration continues to raise concerns about whether a national missile defense system fits within the framework of the 1972 ABM Treaty with the old Soviet Union--the imploded Soviet Union, a country that no longer exists. Much has been made by the opponents of this bill on how Russia would perceive our development of a national missile defense. I visited Russia in December. I spent 10 days in Russia and met with leaders throughout Russia. I was in Siberia. I asked about this question. This question is about the relevancy of our national interest, as all questions of national security are about the relevancy of our national interest, as Russia's questions are about their national interest. The Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the ABM Treaty in April, and a continued set of hearings on into May, leading up to the June 1 deadline by which Chairman Helms has asked the administration to submit the ABM Treaty amendments. It is completely inconsistent for the administration to raise concerns about building a national missile defense system under this current 1972 treaty and then not submit the ABM Treaty amendments to the Senate. This administration has yet to send amendments to the ABM Treaty, nor has it given any indication that it will. The President should submit amendments and allow the Senate to debate this issue. We need to determine whether this 1972 treaty is still relevant to America's security in the 21st century. The security of our people cannot be held hostage to an outdated treaty with a country that no longer exists. The most fundamental responsibility of this Government, of each of us who have the privilege to serve in this body, is to assure the freedom and security of this Nation; to do less not only abrogates our responsibility, but makes us less than worthy of serving the people of this country. As Secretary Rumsfeld stated: The new reality makes threats such as terrorism, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles more attractive to dictators. They are cheaper than armies and air forces and navies. They are attainable. And ballistic missiles have the advantage of being able to arrive at their destination undefended. We need an effective missile defense system, and we need to get at it now. I conclude with what President Reagan said in 1983. He said: If history teaches anything, it teaches simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly--it means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our future, and the squandering of our freedom. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the National Missile Defense Act, S. 257. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from North Carolina for helping organize this recognition of our friend and colleague, my senior Senator from the State of Nebraska, Bob Kerrey. In 1979, on the cover of a Newsweek magazine, with a glorious picture of Teddy Roosevelt riding to the charge, the headline blared out, ``Where Have Our Heroes Gone?'' Mr. President, that was in 1979, at a time when many Americans were questioning the very foundation and base of our Government and our society. They were reaching out for inspiration and courage and asking the Newsweek 1979 question, ``Where have our heroes gone?'' There are heroes all around us. One in our midst is the man whom we recognize this morning, Bob Kerrey. Bob Kerrey is a hero for many reasons. Anyone who has been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest award for valor and bravery, is a hero. But the mark of a hero is what happens after that recognition. What has Bob Kerrey done with his life since that time 30 years ago when he, in a selfless, valorous way, led his men and put his men, his duty, his country and his mission above himself? What has happened to this man since? Well, as he tells the story, in a rather self-effacing way--that is how we Nebraskans are, humble, self-effacing--the only flaw I can find in Kerrey is that he was not Army. But other than that defect, he has conducted himself rather well. The mark of a hero is what one has taken in life--the good, the bad, and all that is in between, and how they have applied that to make the world better, and what they have done to improve the lives of others. That begins with some belief--belief in oneself, belief in one's country, belief in others, belief that in fact God has given us all strengths, resources and weaknesses. As Bob Kerrey has often said, there were so many who surrounded him after those days in Vietnam--in the hospital, in rehabilitation--who helped him put his life back together. That is what inspired him. He rose inspired as well. He rose and reinspired, and reinspired, and reinspired. They lead and they never stop and they never stop. That is the story, to me, that is most magnificent about Bob Kerrey. It is appropriate that we recognize one of our own on the floor of the Senate today. I am particularly proud because I come from the State where Bob Kerrey was grounded with foundations, with values, with standards, with expectations; and so I know how he has inspired our State. Our colleagues know how he has inspired this body and the people around him, and they know of the lives of the people that he has touched. For all of those reasons, and more, Mr. President, I am proud to take a moment to share in recognizing the goodness and, yes, the heroism of our friend and our colleague, Bob Kerrey. To you, good friend, I salute you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999. I am joined in this effort by my distinguished colleagues Senators Bayh, Lott, Bennett, Grams, Kerrey, Johnson, DeWine, Conrad, Inhofe, Murkowski, Brownback, Bryan, Roberts, and Burns. While we've made a few improvements, this is essentially the same legislation I introduced during the 105th Congress. The bill has the formal support of the American Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers Association of America, America's Community Bankers, the Council of Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Association of Home Builders. Equally important, we have the support of the regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Board. The bill's main objective is to strengthen local community banks that are vital to the economic growth and viability of our communities. The Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999 would ensure that, in an era of banking megamergers, smaller banks are able to compete effectively and continue to serve their customers' lending needs. Community banks are finding that, for a variety of reasons, their funding sources are shrinking. This makes it more difficult to fund the loan demands in their communities. During the 1980s in my state of Nebraska--as in much of America--many community banks and thrifts closed. As local credit dried up, local economies stagnated. Small businesses, our greatest engines for job growth, were the first to feel the crunch. The Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999 strengthens community banks in order to avoid a repeat of the 1980s. By ensuring the viability of the community bank and thrift, our bill will keep credit flowing to small businesses, farmers, and potential homeowners--and help our local communities to thrive as we enter the 21st Century. There is plenty of evidence that small banks are facing growing deposit pressures. This problem has two causes: First, banks and thrifts are competing for deposits with brokerage firms and mutual funds--and local institutions are losing. That means that deposits that used to go to local institutions and were used for local lending are now going to major financial institutions outside the community. Second, we have an aging population in many rural communities. When a farmer dies, his inheritance goes to his children--who often have left the community. That means money flows out of the community--out of local financial institutions--and is no longer available for local economic development. These two factors mean less deposits in local banks. That means less local capital available for local loans. Less economic development. Less opportunity. And this problem won't fix itself--most of these local institutions are too small to go to the capital markets on their own. This is where the Federal Home Loan Banks can make a real difference. The Home Loan Banks can be a critical source of liquidity for community banks and thrifts. I tend to focus on rural America because that is where I come from--but liquidity problems can be equally serious in urban areas. The Federal Home Loan Banks are an important tool for providing credit to consumers no matter where they live. A related problem our bill addresses is government subsidized competition with the private sector. Commercial banks compete with credit unions that pay no taxes and, therefore, have a lower cost of funding. The same can be said of the Farm Credit System. Its connection to the federal government gives it a funding advantage over commercial banks. The purpose of this legislation is not to drive the Farm Credit Banks or credit unions out of business--they play a vital role in our country. The purpose is to allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to help level the playing field for commercial banks and thrifts that must compete with these entities. I want to provide you with a real world example: the case of Commercial State Bank in Wausa, Nebraska. Commercial has served northeast Nebraska as an agricultural and business lender for more than 70 years. Now, with a growing economy in the region, the bank is growing as well. In the small community of 600 people, deposits can't keep pace with the growing demand for loans--and that means the bank's liquidity is declining. With less liquidity, there just isn't as much money available for lending as the community demands. This bill would help banks like Commercial and communities like Wausa. As Doug Johnson, president of Commercial State Bank, wrote to me about this legislation: If banks like Commercial State Bank were able to access the Federal Home Loan Bank, our customers would be better able to be serviced with a consistent and competitive source of funding. Denying credit to qualified borrowers is not productive for Nebraska or the Midwest. Unfortunately, those borrowers may miss the opportunities available to them at this time to improve their economic prosperity. Mr. President, that's what this bill is all about--helping communities to better secure their economic futures. The Federal Home Loan Bank system was established in 1932, primarily to provide a source of credit to savings and loan institutions for home lending. Now, a majority of the members in the FHLB system are commercial banks. We should update this system to recognize this change in its membership. Not since 1989 has significant Federal Home Loan Bank legislation become law. The system is working well, but I believe Congress can make it better. It's time for Congress to act. This legislation has five main components: First, our legislation would ease membership requirements for smaller community banks and thrifts that are vital sources of credit in their local communities. It would allow the FHLB System to be more easily accessed as an important source of liquidity for community lenders. These institutions would be permitted to post different types of collateral for various kinds of lending. This critical change will facilitate more small business, rural development, agricultural, and low-income community development lending in rural and urban communities. The second main component of this bill is an issue of basic fairness. Federally chartered savings associations, or thrifts as they are called today, are required to be members of the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Commercial banks, on the other hand, are voluntary members. This disparity is unfair. Our legislation allows federally chartered thrifts to become voluntary members. This is important to these institutions, which are large stockholders in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. It is critical that all member financial institutions have the ability to choose whether Federal Home Loan Bank membership is appropriate or not. As a result of this action, we also equalize stock purchase requirements for all member institutions. We do this in a way that maintains and enhances the safety and soundness of the FHLB system. The third component of this legislation fixes an imbalance in the system's annual REFCORP obligation. Currently, the 12 FHLBanks must collectively pay a fixed $300 million obligation to service the REFCORP bonds that were issued to help pay for the S&L bailout. This fixed obligation has driven the banks to increase their levels of non- mission-related investments. Under our legislation each FHLBank would be required to pay 20.75 percent of its earnings to service the REFCORP debt. Freeing the FHLBanks of the obligation to generate a specific dollar figure would allow them to concentrate on their primary mission of housing finance and community lending. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated this change could bring in an additional $795 million over ten years to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, we have protected the taxpayer from picking up any additional cost of the S&L bailout. Fourth, the legislation addresses the issue of devolution of management functions from the Finance Board to the FHLBanks. On issues of day-to-day management, the FHLBanks should be able to govern themselves independently of their regulator. The function of the Finance Board should be mission regulation and safety-and-soundness regulation. The provisions of the legislation that accomplish this goal are non-controversial and enjoy broad support. In fact, they follow the recommendations of a recent General Accounting Office study. Finally, this legislation reforms the capital structure of the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Current law (established in 1932) dictates that the level of FHLBank capital is determined by the size and mix of a FHLBank's member assets, not by any rational capital standards. The result is the FHLBanks' capital levels don't reflect the risk profile of their lending activities. Furthermore, the FHLBanks' capital lacks permanence because it is withdrawable by members upon termination of their membership. Our bill changes the existing capital rules to include a risk-based capital requirement and a permanent capital requirement which ensures the FHLBanks maintain capital levels appropriate to the risk of their business activities. The new plan also encourages the FHLBanks to build up their retained earnings which act as an additional buffer and protection to the U.S. taxpayer. Mr. President, it's time to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The landscape of the financial services industry is rapidly evolving. The Federal Home Loan Banks should be allowed to modernize to keep pace with these changes. I am grateful to Senator Bayh, the principal cosponsor of the legislation, for his help in this endeavor. I am also grateful to the other cosponsors who have lent their names to this effort. Today, Congressmen Baker and Kanjorski are introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. Both are tireless proponents for Federal Home Loan Bank modernization and their help in the formulation of this legislation was critical. I sincerely hope the Senate Banking Committee and the full Senate will have the chance to consider this important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999. I am joined in this effort by my distinguished colleagues Senators Bayh, Lott, Bennett, Grams, Kerrey, Johnson, DeWine, Conrad, Inhofe, Murkowski, Brownback, Bryan, Roberts, and Burns. While we've made a few improvements, this is essentially the same legislation I introduced during the 105th Congress. The bill has the formal support of the American Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers Association of America, America's Community Bankers, the Council of Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Association of Home Builders. Equally important, we have the support of the regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Board. The bill's main objective is to strengthen local community banks that are vital to the economic growth and viability of our communities. The Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999 would ensure that, in an era of banking megamergers, smaller banks are able to compete effectively and continue to serve their customers' lending needs. Community banks are finding that, for a variety of reasons, their funding sources are shrinking. This makes it more difficult to fund the loan demands in their communities. During the 1980s in my state of Nebraska--as in much of America--many community banks and thrifts closed. As local credit dried up, local economies stagnated. Small businesses, our greatest engines for job growth, were the first to feel the crunch. The Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999 strengthens community banks in order to avoid a repeat of the 1980s. By ensuring the viability of the community bank and thrift, our bill will keep credit flowing to small businesses, farmers, and potential homeowners--and help our local communities to thrive as we enter the 21st Century. There is plenty of evidence that small banks are facing growing deposit pressures. This problem has two causes: First, banks and thrifts are competing for deposits with brokerage firms and mutual funds--and local institutions are losing. That means that deposits that used to go to local institutions and were used for local lending are now going to major financial institutions outside the community. Second, we have an aging population in many rural communities. When a farmer dies, his inheritance goes to his children--who often have left the community. That means money flows out of the community--out of local financial institutions--and is no longer available for local economic development. These two factors mean less deposits in local banks. That means less local capital available for local loans. Less economic development. Less opportunity. And this problem won't fix itself--most of these local institutions are too small to go to the capital markets on their own. This is where the Federal Home Loan Banks can make a real difference. The Home Loan Banks can be a critical source of liquidity for community banks and thrifts. I tend to focus on rural America because that is where I come from--but liquidity problems can be equally serious in urban areas. The Federal Home Loan Banks are an important tool for providing credit to consumers no matter where they live. A related problem our bill addresses is government subsidized competition with the private sector. Commercial banks compete with credit unions that pay no taxes and, therefore, have a lower cost of funding. The same can be said of the Farm Credit System. Its connection to the federal government gives it a funding advantage over commercial banks. The purpose of this legislation is not to drive the Farm Credit Banks or credit unions out of business--they play a vital role in our country. The purpose is to allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to help level the playing field for commercial banks and thrifts that must compete with these entities. I want to provide you with a real world example: the case of Commercial State Bank in Wausa, Nebraska. Commercial has served northeast Nebraska as an agricultural and business lender for more than 70 years. Now, with a growing economy in the region, the bank is growing as well. In the small community of 600 people, deposits can't keep pace with the growing demand for loans--and that means the bank's liquidity is declining. With less liquidity, there just isn't as much money available for lending as the community demands. This bill would help banks like Commercial and communities like Wausa. As Doug Johnson, president of Commercial State Bank, wrote to me about this legislation: If banks like Commercial State Bank were able to access the Federal Home Loan Bank, our customers would be better able to be serviced with a consistent and competitive source of funding. Denying credit to qualified borrowers is not productive for Nebraska or the Midwest. Unfortunately, those borrowers may miss the opportunities available to them at this time to improve their economic prosperity. Mr. President, that's what this bill is all about--helping communities to better secure their economic futures. The Federal Home Loan Bank system was established in 1932, primarily to provide a source of credit to savings and loan institutions for home lending. Now, a majority of the members in the FHLB system are commercial banks. We should update this system to recognize this change in its membership. Not since 1989 has significant Federal Home Loan Bank legislation become law. The system is working well, but I believe Congress can make it better. It's time for Congress to act. This legislation has five main components: First, our legislation would ease membership requirements for smaller community banks and thrifts that are vital sources of credit in their local communities. It would allow the FHLB System to be more easily accessed as an important source of liquidity for community lenders. These institutions would be permitted to post different types of collateral for various kinds of lending. This critical change will facilitate more small business, rural development, agricultural, and low-income community development lending in rural and urban communities. The second main component of this bill is an issue of basic fairness. Federally chartered savings associations, or thrifts as they are called today, are required to be members of the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Commercial banks, on the other hand, are voluntary members. This disparity is unfair. Our legislation allows federally chartered thrifts to become voluntary members. This is important to these institutions, which are large stockholders in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. It is critical that all member financial institutions have the ability to choose whether Federal Home Loan Bank membership is appropriate or not. As a result of this action, we also equalize stock purchase requirements for all member institutions. We do this in a way that maintains and enhances the safety and soundness of the FHLB system. The third component of this legislation fixes an imbalance in the system's annual REFCORP obligation. Currently, the 12 FHLBanks must collectively pay a fixed $300 million obligation to service the REFCORP bonds that were issued to help pay for the S&L bailout. This fixed obligation has driven the banks to increase their levels of non- mission-related investments. Under our legislation each FHLBank would be required to pay 20.75 percent of its earnings to service the REFCORP debt. Freeing the FHLBanks of the obligation to generate a specific dollar figure would allow them to concentrate on their primary mission of housing finance and community lending. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated this change could bring in an additional $795 million over ten years to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, we have protected the taxpayer from picking up any additional cost of the S&L bailout. Fourth, the legislation addresses the issue of devolution of management functions from the Finance Board to the FHLBanks. On issues of day-to-day management, the FHLBanks should be able to govern themselves independently of their regulator. The function of the Finance Board should be mission regulation and safety-and-soundness regulation. The provisions of the legislation that accomplish this goal are non-controversial and enjoy broad support. In fact, they follow the recommendations of a recent General Accounting Office study. Finally, this legislation reforms the capital structure of the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Current law (established in 1932) dictates that the level of FHLBank capital is determined by the size and mix of a FHLBank's member assets, not by any rational capital standards. The result is the FHLBanks' capital levels don't reflect the risk profile of their lending activities. Furthermore, the FHLBanks' capital lacks permanence because it is withdrawable by members upon termination of their membership. Our bill changes the existing capital rules to include a risk-based capital requirement and a permanent capital requirement which ensures the FHLBanks maintain capital levels appropriate to the risk of their business activities. The new plan also encourages the FHLBanks to build up their retained earnings which act as an additional buffer and protection to the U.S. taxpayer. Mr. President, it's time to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The landscape of the financial services industry is rapidly evolving. The Federal Home Loan Banks should be allowed to modernize to keep pace with these changes. I am grateful to Senator Bayh, the principal cosponsor of the legislation, for his help in this endeavor. I am also grateful to the other cosponsors who have lent their names to this effort. Today, Congressmen Baker and Kanjorski are introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. Both are tireless proponents for Federal Home Loan Bank modernization and their help in the formulation of this legislation was critical. I sincerely hope the Senate Banking Committee and the full Senate will have the chance to consider this important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to add my enthusiastic support for S. 4. The most important responsibility a nation has is to its people's security, ensuring a nation's freedom. As all of us in life, nations and governments are no different. We must prioritize. We must prioritize our resources. We must prioritize our agendas. We must prioritize the focus that we give to our people. As important as is Social Security, and Medicare, and tax cuts, and education and all that compose a society that helps develop a culture, national security is the highest priority, the highest priority of a government, and its most important responsibility. There will be much debate, as there should be much debate, over the next year and a half about the priorities of this Nation as we move into the next century. None will be more important than the debate that is occurring in this Chamber today, because what we are saying, the message we are sending to our people, to our friends and our foes alike around the world, is that, first, we will address the important issues confronting our national security interests; second, we will put into play and into our national security interests the resources necessary to maintain a national security system second to none. We will, in fact, prioritize our national security so that it will, as history has shown, guarantee our foreign policy, our export expansion, our trade reform. All of these are part of an overarching policy that connects, and we cannot have one without the other. We know--we have heard today, we have heard over the last 2 days--the problems that now confront our military--readiness, retention, recruitment. Any measure we take of our national security today comes up short, comes up wanting, and it is the responsibility of this Congress to lead; it is the responsibility of the President to lead, and it is the responsibility of America to prioritize the national security interests of our country. We need, more than ever before, the best, the brightest, young men and women to make a military career a career not only they can be proud of, our Nation can be proud of, but a career that serves our interests. When we look at what has happened to this military in the last 10 years--longer deployments, more deployments, losing our senior enlisted halfway through their 20 years, pilots dropping out, the investment our society puts in these men and women--we find we are perilously close to the edge as to how far we can continue to defend not only our freedom but our interests in the world. And make no mistake about this, Mr. President. We just don't have select interests in the world; all the world is in our interests. Does that mean we are the international policemen? No. What it does mean is, because we do live in a globally connected world, a very competitive world, that in every corner of the world our interest is peace, stability, freedom; the development of democratic governments and market economies are in the interests of all of our people. So, this is not esoteric. This is relevant. And as we close the debate on this issue, we are talking about more than just putting the necessary resources into our national security commitments and capabilities, but we are sending a message to our people, to our culture, to our society, that in fact we very much value the men and women who make defending our freedoms their life. What we are saying, as well, to the families of these men and women is: We value you. We know the hardships that you deal with. We know about those long deployments. Not since Vietnam--and I see my colleague, Senator Robb, standing across the way--not since Senator Robb and I served in Vietnam has there been any addressing of the pay scale of our military. That is embarrassing. That is not worthy of a great nation and a great people. So, again, I say this is not only in the best interests of our country, but it is making a very specific and definite statement to our people, to our culture, to our society that duty, honor, and country count. Duty, honor, and country count. We want people to be proud to serve our country in uniform. We want to acknowledge them, not just by increasing their pay and their benefits--because that is, in part, a measurement of their worth and a way to keep score--but by saying: We know your worth. We know how important you are and we value that. We need you. For those reasons and many more that we have heard today and we will hear tomorrow, I strongly support S. 4. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank my colleague. Amendment No. 8

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I write this statement at my desk on the floor of the United States Senate. After weeks of listening, reading, reviewing, reflection, analysis and contemplation I have come to the conclusion that I will vote to convict the President on both Articles of Impeachment. The Constitution is very clear. It requires Members of the United States Senate to vote for or against each Article of Impeachment. No improvising. No substitutions. No censures. No findings of fact. The completeness of the charges against the President is powerful. The issue is abuse of power. Did the President abuse his power and therefore violate the Nation's trust in him? We must remember that trust is the only true currency elected officials have. Perjury and obstruction of justice are not just federal crimes. When committed by an elected official they are abuses of power. When committed by a president they constitute an abuse of the highest power. The standards and expectations for America's elected officials cannot be calibrated. When elected officials bring down those standards and expectations and violate the people's trust . . . they rip the very fabric of our Nation. There is then a dishonoring of the spirit that is the guardian of American justice. There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us? What holds this Nation, this society, this culture, together? Yes, laws are part of it. But it is really the strong moral foundation anchored by values and standards--the individual sense of right and wrong, personal responsibility, accountability for one's actions. This is what holds a free people together. Respect for each other--not because a law dictates that action--but rather because it's the right thing to do. The President violated his Constitutional oath and he broke the law. His crimes do rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors prescribed in the Constitution. The President's actions cannot be defended by dancing on the pin head of legal technicality. Every American must know actions have consequences. Even for presidents. All Americans must have faith in our laws and know that there is equal justice for all. The core of our judicial process is the rule of law. Americans deserve to always expect the highest standard of conduct from their elected officials. If that expectation is defined down over time, it will erode the very base of our democracy and put our Republic in peril. That is the point of the Impeachment Clause of our Constitution . . . to protect the Republic. The Impeachment clause of our Constitution is there to ensure the fitness of an individual to hold high office. President Clinton's conduct has debased his office and violated the soul of justice--truth. He has thereby debased and violated the American people. I have no other course to follow than to vote to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both Articles of Impeachment.