Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hagel and Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 1021 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. By previous consent, at 11 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 955, the foreign operations appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to that appropriations bill, and Senators can, therefore, expect rollcall votes throughout the day. As a reminder, under the consent agreement reached last night, a vote will occur on final passage of S. 1004, the energy and water appropriations bill, immediately following the first vote relative to the foreign operations bill. It is hoped the Senate will be able to complete action on the foreign operations bill during today's session of the Senate. It is also the intention of the majority leader to begin consideration of the legislative appropriations bill this week, as well as complete action on the nomination of Joel Klein under the remaining 3-hour time agreement. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, along with my good friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Max Cleland. We are joined by Senators Hutchinson of Arkansas, Helms, Dorgan, Roth, Faircloth, Burns, Landrieu, Moynihan, Reid of Nevada, and Campbell. This important piece of legislation is needed to help America's most deserving and self- sacrificing citizens, our veterans, to get and hold jobs with the Federal Government. In 1944, the Congress enacted the first veterans employment preference legislation. That law was intended to assist service men and women returning from the battlefields of World War II in getting Federal Government jobs. Through the years many changes have taken place in the way we manage civil service personnel within our Government, and most recently there has been considerable focus on downsizing the Federal bureaucracy. One thing has not changed however, and that is that our veterans need to find employment when they return to civilian life. This bill addresses the critical need to revise and make more ``user friendly'' those laws that help veterans to get Federal jobs, and to hold on to them as the Government downsizes. I want to emphasize that this bill does not guarantee anyone a job, but it does allow the sacrifices made by those who served in uniform to have their service recognized as they are considered along with others for Federal jobs. The statistical evidence of need for this legislation tells a troubling story. When Federal job openings occur, the hiring official is sent a job referral list that includes the names of qualified applicants from which the job can be filled. The General Accounting Office [GAO] found that 71 percent of job referral lists were returned without hiring when a veteran headed the list. By contrast, 51 percent of nonveteran lists are returned. Not only are veterans not getting the preference that the statutes require, but too often, veterans are less likely than other applicants to be hired for a Federal job. This bill will also end unfair designer RIFs that single out veterans for removal from the Federal work force during reductions in force. Perhaps more important, this bill makes a violation of this law a prohibited personnel practice, putting teeth in the law where none now exist. I am proud to say that 19 military, veterans, and patriotic associations have indicated that such legislation is needed and that they strongly support this legislation. Those who have made very special contributions to America and our way of life, ensuring freedom and individual liberties to all Americans, deserve recognition and fairness when applying for employment in Federal Government. Our veterans do not ask for special privileges. Fifty years ago this Nation made the decision to recognize the sacrifices and extra commitment made by our veterans for America. This legislation ensures that special recognition will be provided. I am very proud to join my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Max Cleland, who himself has made tremendous contributions to 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 to reflect a little on what my friend and neighbor--literally my neighbor--from Colorado has talked about here in the last few minutes regarding OPIC. First, I rise to oppose my friend, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, regarding his amendment. I will explain why. Before I came to this body, I was a businessman, a small businessman. Over the last 15 years, my partners and I founded a number of companies. A number of those companies were international companies. I have dealt with OPIC directly. I understand a little bit about, I think, the real world, how jobs are created, how you must market in the international community, what kind of competition is out there against a little company like mine that has to go toe to toe with foreign competitors all over the globe. One of the things I learned very quickly was when you go toe to toe with international competitors, whether it is telecommunications--which I know a little something about--or any other industry, the support that comes with your competitor, from his government, his country, is rather significant. I think that is important in this debate. As my friend, Senator Allard, said, we will have an opportunity to truly debate this issue over the next few months. But I would like to make a couple of points that I think are very relevant to OPIC, what OPIC does, what it represents. Again, I come at this, not as a U.S. Senator; I come at this as someone who understands a little bit about how this works and who has been out in the real world in over 60 countries and done business in about 20 of them. First, I am concerned that an amendment like that of my friend, to slash administrative expenses, could lead to the very point that he is concerned with. It is a good point. If you slash administrative expenses for OPIC, the likelihood is the quality of the portfolio of OPIC, the quality of investments that OPIC has made and will continue to make, will suffer. I think it would cut directly to eliminating the ability to monitor those loan portfolios. I do not think that is in the best interests of the American taxpayer or anyone associated with OPIC. It endangers the creditworthiness of OPIC if you slash their administrative budget. Let me hit just a few very specific points as to what OPIC does. There is an awful lot of sound and fury and smoke and mirrors when it comes to OPIC. First, OPIC, in fact, does level the playing field in global competition. I spoke to that earlier. All of America's major trade competitors have OPIC-like agencies to help them. It covers the gaps in the markets all over this world. OPIC creates American jobs. I have a document here--I am sure Senator Allard has seen it--of the kind of jobs created in Colorado, his home State, and in my home State of Nebraska; the kind of revenues that flow into Colorado because of countries that buy from companies that have either OPIC insurance that they pay for, or OPIC loans that they pay for. This is a job creator. This is a growth creator. To give some of the specific numbers on this, since 1971 OPIC has supported $108 billion worth of U.S. projects resulting in over 250,000 new American jobs and $53 billion in new American exports. OPIC is prohibited under law from supporting any project that would result in the loss of one single American job. Two, OPIC does not cost the taxpayers money. In fact, every year OPIC returns to the U.S. Treasury--last year $209 million. OPIC requires no appropriation of funds. Its operations are entirely funded by the market-rate fees it charges businesses. There is some myth about this. If you want an OPIC loan or guarantee or insurance, you pay for it. This isn't a free deal. OPIC is not corporate welfare. I am always amused, and I am a conservative Republican--let me tell you, I am for less Government and cutting Government and cutting taxes. But I am always amused when I ask my colleagues, what do you mean corporate welfare? What is corporate welfare? No American business receives any subsidy or free benefit from OPIC. All OPIC loans must be paid in full. OPIC charges full market rates and, where applicable, high-risk-based interest rates and insurance premiums for all of its services. Remember, OPIC returns money to the Treasury through the fees it charges firms that use its services. OPIC has a strong record. Let's not overlook this. It has extraordinarily low default rates, less than 1 percent since 1971. OPIC maintains a well-diversified portfolio by region, by sector, by industry, and maintains $2.7 billion in reserves. We have talked about the possibility of privatizing OPIC. Last year J.P. Morgan looked at it, made a study. It won't work that way. Let me tell you, when you are a small company, a small business like I had, to try to compete with the big guys from France and Germany and Britain--all over the globe-- to be able to have some base of your country behind you, and you pay for that, is significant. The last point I will make, OPIC supports small business. There is a lot of myth about that as well, that this is a big-business boondoggle. It is not. I am living proof of that. In 1996, OPIC supported record numbers of small business projects worth $1.8 billion in 17 countries. Many small American businesses are suppliers to the larger exporters that indirectly come through OPIC. More than half of all suppliers to OPIC-based projects are small businesses. This is a ripple effect. When we get projects and deals internationally, you have to sponsor those. You buy products to support those. And those come from States like that of my friend from Colorado and Nebraska and every State in the Union. So this is a ripple-effect operation. Mr. President, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is shortsighted and I think the wisest thing to do is to continue with our funding, with our authorization, and as I said earlier, we will have ample opportunity to address this issue in debate. But I don't think a hit-and-run way to approach this with an amendment is the correct way to do it. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support and cosponsor the amendment that has been brought to the floor by my distinguished friend and colleague from Massachusetts, representing the six Vietnam veterans serving in the U.S. Senate with our view of what has happened in Cambodia as well as now the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And I hope that all of our colleagues join in supporting this resolution. I echo, Mr. President, and very much support what my colleagues have said tonight about the tragedy that has befallen Cambodia. I would only add, Mr. President, that at a time in our world when we are reaching out to secure more freedom for peoples around the world, secure more stability, that we have talked about and will debate in detail NATO expansion, and we are currently involved in Bosnia, we must not forget the other corners of the globe. Certainly what we as a free country, the leader of the free world, have invested in Cambodia, in that part of the world, is very important. This is a serious matter, Mr. President. It is serious not just for Cambodia, but it is serious for that part of the world because instability in that part of the world leads to great tragedy. We know that firsthand, some of us in this body. It is very important. It is essential that the leadership of this Nation be brought foursquare. We enlist the ASEAN nations and other nations to support our efforts to be able to lead Cambodia back to a time when there is the rule of law and there is security and there is stability. Hopefully, this resolution presented tonight will be a good beginning. I add as well, Mr. President, the administration has taken action today. The ASEAN nations have taken action. But we need more. I only add this as a summary statement to what we are doing this evening. It is critical, as we enter this new century, that all that has been invested in southeast Asia in blood and treasure, not just Americans, but our friends from Australia, South Korea, all over that area, to make sure that we do not slip back into a morass of tyranny and lose progress that we have so diligently fought for over the years. Mr. President, I very much hope that all of our colleagues will strongly support this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Yes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming for an opportunity to speak this morning about something that is rather important to Americans, all Americans, Americans who pay the bill, the forgotten American, I think, as we enter this next phase of debate in this country about tax relief. Make no mistake, Mr. President, this is what it is about. This is not about social tinkering. It is not about environmental policy. It is about tax relief--tax relief for those people who pay taxes, those people who have been footing the bill in this country for a long time. So, let's first of all put this in perspective. I say that especially in light of the news conference that I saw yesterday and again this morning held by the Vice President and Secretary Rubin. I have the highest regard for Vice President Gore and Secretary Rubin, but I was astounded that much of the focus in that news conference was not about tax relief for the average middle-class American. It was about brownfields. It was about inner cities. It was about other policies. This policy is about providing Americans tax relief, providing relief for the forgotten American. The bill that we passed in this body 2 weeks ago, and the bill that was passed in the House 2 weeks ago, is not perfect, but it is a very significant first step. As my friend and colleague from Wyoming just said, it is the first significant tax relief legislation in 16 years. We are here to do the Nation's business. We are here to focus on the average man and woman who pay their taxes, raise their family, and need to keep more of their income. You heard all of the numbers. You heard the statistics. But I think it is worth noting that we talk a little bit about what is in fact--in fact, not theory, not fabrication, not imputed income, not phony economic tax models that we are hearing from some corners--but in fact what is in this bill. Let's just take a moment to review some of this. This is about helping the 6 in 10 Americans who must file Federal tax returns, the people who work hard to make a good life for themselves, their families, and their communities. It is about helping the 3 in 4 Americans who file tax returns and earn less than $50,000 a year. Three-fourths of all taxpayers make less than $50,000 a year. In fact, three-fourths of all the tax cuts in the Taxpayer Relief Act that the Senate and the House passed overwhelmingly in a very strong, bipartisan way go to people making less than $75,000 a year. This act has a number of provisions that will help families, small businesses, students, farmers, ranchers, and single parents who earn less than $75,000 a year. Couples earning less than $110,000 will get the full benefit of the family tax relief in this bill. Parents with children age 12 and under get a $500 per child tax credit against their taxes--keeping more of their money. Parents with children ages 13 to 16 also get a tax credit. The Taxpayer Relief Act allows parents to set up special tax-deferred savings accounts to help with their children's education. It allows single people with incomes under $50,000 and couples with incomes under a $100,000 a tax credit for part of their children's college expenses. Mr. President, come on. This is not a rich person's tax bill. This is a middle-class, average-American tax bill. And anyone who says to the contrary doesn't understand what we are doing here. This also allows recent college graduates who are struggling to get established to deduct up to $2,500 in student loan interest payments during each of their first few years after graduation. Capital gains tax cuts will help anyone who owns property--not rich people. Come on. Anyone who owns property is affected by the capital gains tax in this country. A capital gains tax cut helps middle-class Americans. Fifty-six percent of all tax returns reporting capital gains come from taxpayers with total incomes below $50,000. We move in this bill capital gains taxes from 28 percent to 20 percent. Estate tax cuts will help millions of Americans. Both the House and Senate bills raised the estate tax exemptions to $1 million. It is not perfect. We need more. Of course, we do. But it is a good, strong beginning. It is a start. We need to phase these out. These estate taxes are not only unfair but they are un-American. You work all of your life. You work hard. You pay taxes. And at the end automatically the Government comes in and takes half of your estate. You tell me, Mr. President, where that is fair. Some people think it is. I don't. I don't think most Americans think it is fair. There are many, many other tax provisions in this bill to help farmers with livestock killed by severe weather and farmers hurt by unwarranted IRS rulings regarding the alternative minimum tax. Truckers are restored with the business meal deduction to 80 percent. These are not rich people. This bill helps small businesses by delaying a new, burdensome requirement that they file their income tax returns on anything other than electronic payroll tax means. It helps universities and other researchers by extending the research and experimentation tax credit. It helps people suffering from rare diseases by permanently extending the orphan drug tax credit. This is real America. This is for real Americans. We need to pass this tax relief bill. None of us likes everything in this bill. But we can either squabble ourselves into total stalemate or we can pass this bill and get the first real tax cuts since 1981. Congress needs to reconcile this, move ahead in our conference, and send it to the President. He needs to sign it. America expects us to do this business. Mr. President, we have a responsibility and an obligation to do America's business. I encourage my colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the House to do the right thing and vote for a conference report and bring real tax relief to the American public. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I returned with six of my colleagues over the weekend from a day in Bosnia. Majority Leader Lott and five of our other colleagues spent the Fourth of July early in the morning until late at night with our troops and officials in Bosnia. I think it is appropriate that as we debate the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill we reflect just for a moment on the men and women on the ground in Bosnia and the men and women who secure our liberties around the world. Much of the debate, much of the policy reflect numbers, reflect general overall direction. Increasingly, that policy direction is debated, and should be. But we tend to forget the humanness, the very men and women of what our Armed Forces are all about. As my colleagues and I, on the Fourth of July in Bosnia, spent a great deal of time with the 8,500 American men and women who are part of that large contingent in Bosnia, I could not help but reflect on what an outstanding job these men and women do for this country, for peace, stability around the world. I want to add the human dynamic to this debate today, and that will go into tomorrow, on the DOD authorization bill. Because, after all, it is the men and women who are on the ground who are there every day and every night who secure those liberties, for not only this country but for the people in the area of Bosnia. I tend to think also, when I was an infantryman in Vietnam in 1968, our policy in Vietnam might have been better served, Mr. President, if the Secretary of Defense and more Members of the House and the Senate had come to Vietnam, had spent time with the troops, listening to what they think, listening to their issues and concerns and qualifications, and not unlike wars and peacekeeping missions throughout our history it still is the man and the woman on the ground that we count on to secure those liberties. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today the Senate will resume consideration of S. 936, the Department of Defense Authorization Act. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. Any votes ordered today with respect to amendments to the DOD bill will be set aside to occur at a time to be determined later. Under the consent agreement, there will be a cloture vote on the DOD bill at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday afternoon. As a reminder, all first-degree amendments to the bill must be filed by 1 p.m. this afternoon. It is the hope of the majority leader that we will make significant progress on the bill today so that we can complete action on the defense bill this week. Beginning next week, the Senate will begin consideration of the available appropriations bills. Senators should be prepared for a busy legislative period between now and the August recess as we consider these appropriations bills as well as the conference reports to accompany the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayers Fairness Act. There is much work to do in the next 4 weeks, and the majority leader thanks all Members in advance for their cooperation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I wish to offer my thanks to my friend and colleague from across the prairie from the great State of Wyoming. People in Wyoming and Nebraska and all over America, I think, rather plainly understand and sense what we are doing this week in this body in this Congress; and that is addressing their issues. You know, Mr. President, I am amused at much of the debate that has been raging in the Congress the last few months on the budget and taxes. And, you see, I define this down rather simply. Whose money is this? Whose money are we talking about? Is it the President's money? Is it my money? Is it the distinguished Presiding Officer's money? Is it Congress' money? No. No. You see, this is about the people's money. This is about the hard- earned money of taxpayers. The Government should be accountable to the people. Our taxpayers, our citizens should not be accountable to government. And we are living at a time when we are taxed as highly as at any time, except in World War II, in the history of this country. We are living during a time when we are taxed that highly. A median family of four, total tax paid out, over 40 percent. These struggling young families are paying more in taxes than they are in combined efforts to ensure that they have enough for shelter or clothes or food and other necessities. At some point, Mr. President, we will not only bankrupt our country, but we will surely bankrupt the opportunities for our young people. These young people starting out in life in our country, a country of promise, of hope, of opportunity--always has been--are looking at a very bleak future unless this Congress steps up and honestly deals with the challenges that take us into this bold new great century. And it does start with tax cuts. It starts with real tax relief. And what we will be debating this week is tax relief for families, for lower middle-income people, people who need tax relief, people who pay the bills in this country. But let us not also be unmindful of what else is attached to what we will be debating. Real budget cuts, putting this country on the trajectory for fiscal responsibility, we have an opportunity here for the first time in 30 years to agree to a balanced budget, a budget that would be in balance within 5 years, put this country on a course to balance our budget as far out as the eye can see. We also have an opportunity to cut government. Government is too big. Government is unresponsive. Government cannot possibly do everything we have asked government to do. We have overloaded our circuits, Mr. President. Not government's fault. But we have asked government over the last 30 years to do everything. And who has paid the bill? Who has paid the bill? Well-intentioned programs, but this is an era of prioritizing our resources. And we start with giving our people, our taxpayers, the people who have been doing the heavy lifting and paying the bills in this country the last 30 years, especially, a break, give them some of their money back. My goodness, they understand how to spend their money better than government does. Let us decentralize power. Let us put power back where the people are. Let us make government accountable and make it responsible. So all of this is a total package. Mr. President, I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. Before I came to this body, I was a businessman. I started my own companies, international/national companies. And the opportunities that lay ahead for this country, for our people, and the world, if we are wise enough to understand and seize the moment, the potential for our people is unlimited if--if--we are wise enough to cut our taxes, to cut our spending, to balance our budget, and take the burden of government off the backs of our people who produce. Oh, we will be able to get along for the next 5, 10 years. But we are entering a time like no other in the history of man. It is a time full of hope; but it is a time of great competitiveness. This next generation coming in behind us will have to compete in a complete global economy. And as we look all around the world, on every continent--and it is not just Asia--South America, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Republics, all of the areas in the world are doing well and will continue to explode with opportunity. They are disciplined. They are focused. And the movement of most of the governments in the world today is less government. The countries in trouble today are in trouble because of the burden of taxes and the burden of government. We have an opportunity here, as my distinguished colleague from Wyoming said earlier, to change that. Imperfect? Yes. Do the taxes go deep enough, far enough? No. But it is a beginning. It is a start. It is tangible. It is real. We can build on that. And we can show America that, in fact, we can govern and lead and do the people's business, that we do not get all tangled up in esoterics, in tactics and nonsense that goes on in this town. But, in fact, we can stay focused and clear-headed and do the people's business, and do what we are required to do on behalf of the people of this country. Mr. President, I want to also address for a moment some of the weekend television on this issue of tax cuts. I was a little amused that I saw our distinguished Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Rubin, who is a great public servant, who is dedicated, who has done a good job as Secretary of the Treasury, talk about the White House modeling of our proposed tax cuts that show most of the benefits going to the higher income and the wealthy. That is just not true, absolutely not true. I note here, for example, a press release sent out on Friday from one of the big six accounting firms, Deloitte & Touche. In the first paragraph it talks about: Families with household incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 are the biggest beneficiaries on a percentage basis under the Senate tax plan, according to a new analysis by Deloitte & Touche. The big winners are middle-class families with kids. And it goes on and on. The scoring, the methodology, the models that the Members used are the same models that the Congressional Budget Office uses, that we use, that most everybody uses. I want to take issue with my friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, when he talks about some scoring model he referred to over the weekend. That, in fact, is rather bizarre. It imputes income from unrealized capital gains. It talks about rent back income. If you own your house and you actually put that house on the market for rent--that is just nonsense. What we are talking about here is real tax relief for real people. If we do this right, we can give the American public, for the first time in 16 or 17 years, a tax cut, a real tax cut that we can build on. Mr. President, in my final comments, I will reference my weekend back in Nebraska. I was, on Saturday, in North Platte, NE, the home of Buffalo Bill. Being a good Kansan, Mr. President, you probably understand that and have probably been across the border and paid homage to Buffalo Bill's home ranch. It was amazing to me, all day in North Platte, NE, farmers, ranchers, small business people, and families would come up to me during the day and talk about this issue. Farmers, ranchers, and small business people asked me, ``Senator, do you think I consider myself rich because I support capital gains tax or inheritance tax relief? You see I don't think I am very rich. I have an income of $50,000, $40,000, or $60,000, but I would like to leave my children something. Why is it fair, Senator, for the Government to take these big chunks out of an estate that the Government did not do anything to produce? I paid my taxes, and my father and mother paid their taxes all along the way. Yet in the end, the Government automatically comes in and gets half.'' Mr. President, being the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, you understand what it has done to agriculture in this country, what it has done to devastate farms being passed along from generation to generation, ranches, and small businesses. It is unfair and wrong. Anybody who has an asset is going to deal with a capital gains tax. You do not have to be a millionaire. It is a sense of fairness, a sense of getting ahead in this country, a sense of doing the right thing. We have a Tax Code in this country that essentially penalizes success. We give disincentive to savings and investment. Now, are we going to change the Tax Code this week? I doubt it. But this is surely a darn good start. It is a very tangible, real beginning for the people of this country who deserve it most. I hope my colleagues during the debate this week will rivet in on this debate because it will be, as Senator Thomas said, one of the most important debates not only of this Congress but, I think, of the last 10 years and into the next century because we have an opportunity to truly shape and mold the future of this country, the future for our young people. We cannot leave them the mounds of debt that we are now leaving them, the burden of regulation, the burden of big Government, the burden of high taxes, and think they are going to succeed. They will not. We must get at it. This is a good start. I strongly support what we have done so far and what has been produced out of the Finance Committee and over in the House Ways and Means Committee. With that, I yield back my time to Senator Thomas of Wyoming.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I will be brief, Mr. President. I know there are others who want to speak on this issue. There is an old North Carolina adage that goes like this: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. The Senator has heard that, I know. I think that is what we are talking about this morning. This is rather remarkable. What has been pieced together over 5 months of very diligent effort, leadership, and hard work, making something work based on a bipartisan foreign policy effort and a commitment made by Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Secretary of State Albright, and the administration, who all have worked very hard on this. When you add to that Senator Grams from Minnesota, as the subcommittee chairman, who has put his imprimatur and worked hard and given his leadership to this effort, this is a remarkable effort. Mr. President, I don't know about you or other Senators in this body, but for years and years, as a private citizen, as a taxpayer, and as a businessman, I would hear constantly, and I have heard over the last 2 years during my campaign: What about the United Nations? What are we doing? The United Nations says we owe money. Do we owe money? How much? What about the peacekeeping efforts? Are our peacekeeping dollars counted? How do we account for that? Isn't it true that we put American men and women in harm's way and we paid the bill and we are in Bosnia and all over the globe? So what is the correct way to assess our dues, our commitment to this very important organization? The debate, ladies and gentlemen--don't be mistaken here--is not whether the United Nations is good, bad, or whether we want to be in it or not. Of course it is good. The world is better because of the United Nations. But we need to get this issue cleared up. We need to take the negotiations that have been held by the leaders in this and hold negotiations. I think it was rather evident in our committee hearings and the subsequent markup of this bill last week, when it was reported out 14 to 4. It said to me that, in fact, bipartisanship is in effect and, in fact, the commitment made by the administration and Senators Biden, Helms, and others, will make this work. We need to get this behind us and we need to address this issue. I think it is a fair resolution to the issue. We can then work on the bigger issues that this country and the world must face as we move into a bold, new century. Big issues. We have trade issues. We have treaty issues. I, for one, am not one Senator who wants to go back and replay this. I say this with the greatest respect for Senator Lugar and others who have been involved in this. Hardly an individual in this body is as aware and provided as much leadership on foreign relations as Senator Lugar. But I think the time is now to make what we came up with--the good effort of bipartisan leadership--the bill that we move forward with and, therefore, allowing this body, the committee, and all those responsible for policy in this country, as we move into the next century, the freedom to focus on that. I rise today in strong support of the Helms- Biden bill. I hope my colleagues will take what I and my colleagues have said this morning into consideration as they vote today. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first, I want to commend my distinguished colleague from Vermont for his leadership over the years. This has been an issue that has been worked with some difficulty with a certain intenseness to develop, first of all, an awareness of the problem. This is an issue that, like all difficult issues, should always come with a certain amount of information. And through the process over the years, Senator Leahy; my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey; and others, have been remarkable in their tenacity and their effort to focus on this issue of landmines. Today, I continue with my friend from Vermont; my distinguished senior Senator, Bob Kerrey; and others in our efforts to ban antipersonnel landmines. The legislation that we are introducing this morning would permanently ban new deployments of antipersonnel landmines. Now, my colleague talked a little bit about why it is important. But I think there are a couple of primary reasons, Mr. President, that we owe this country the world leadership on this issue. First, America has always taken the moral high ground over its brief 200-year history. There is some debate and argument about the military necessity, the military use, the viability of landmines. But as we enter a new century, a bold new century full of hope and promise, in my opinion-- and I have some experience in this business--I do not really believe, nor do many former commanders and present commanders believe, that to continue to use antipersonnel landmines in our arsenal is in the best interest of anyone. So I take up this debate as a conservative Senator from Nebraska, a combat veteran. There is no U.S. Senator in this body who supports more strongly the U.S. military, what we must do to always arm our military, never taking away the capabilities of our military. So I come at this as a very strong advocate of our national defense forces and the awesome responsibility our military has to protect our people and freedom worldwide. However, I believe the issue here regarding the banning of antipersonnel landmines is no longer the argument of whether we should or shouldn't. The issue now is when and how. I believe the time is now. The time is now for this country and for this body to provide leadership, as so many other nations around the world are providing leadership on this issue. We can change the face of warfare. We must not make the mistake in believing that this act alone will do away with landmines. It is a beginning. We must understand and face the fact that there are over 110 million landmines in the ground today all over the world. This act today will not dig those 110 million mines up. But it is a beginning. It is a moral beginning. It is a beginning that sends a message to the world that we are a moral nation, that we will defend freedom as we always have, and that we will defend the rights of individuals, but we do not need indiscriminate killing machines like antipersonnel mines in order to defend those liberties. Mr. President, there are colleagues other than Senator Leahy and I on the floor, and I wish to ensure that they have time to express themselves on this issue. With that, I will summarize by saying that those of us in Congress-- especially those of us who have served in combat--have a responsibility to those Americans who now serve in our military to give our best judgment on all weapons systems, including landmines, to the future. We owe no less to the countless thousands of civilians, including many men and women who will yet suffer from the indiscriminate use of these weapons. It is significant, as I see my friend and colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey, the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, walk around on the floor of the Senate, that my other five Vietnam combat veterans have joined Senator Leahy and I in cosponsoring this important initiative. It is time for America to lead. Mr. President, thank you. I yield my time to Senator Leahy. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield as much time as necessary to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Yes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator from West Virginia in cosponsoring the resolution that he has brought to the floor this morning. As my distinguished colleague has already noted, this resolution deals with U.S. policy on the global climate issue. This is a very serious issue, with potentially disastrous consequences to the United States economy. Next week I will begin, as Senator Byrd noted, hearings in the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Trade and Export Promotion on the global climate negotiations. Like Senator Byrd, I believe that the Senate must not simply wait until the negotiations are completed and then respond. If we do that, it then would be too late to exercise our constitutional responsibility to not only give our consent to treaties but, even more important, to give our advice to the President. Next week, my subcommittee will be hearing from the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Tim Wirth. Secretary Wirth has been the administration's chief negotiator in the U.N.'s global climate negotiations. I will be following that first hearing a week later with a second hearing. We will ask fair questions, tough questions, and we will expect honest answers. All Americans are concerned about our environment--of course, they are and should be--and how to ensure that it is protected for our children and our grandchildren. The responsibility we have as public servants, as policymakers, is to seek the best solutions where problems exist and come to a strong and commonsense bipartisan consensus on what is the best policy to deal with this problem. This resolution offers a general baseline for what we can accept as sensible, commonsense policy. This resolution does not address all the specific concerns many of us have over this issue. We know that. As the necessary debate over the global climate issue progresses over the next few months, we will have an opportunity to hear from all sides, just as Senator Byrd pointed out, and further open up this issue and talk about the specifics associated with the global climate issue. How we deal with this issue of climate control will have serious consequences--serious consequences--for our economy, the environment, Americans' future standard of living, energy costs, energy use, economic growth, our global competitiveness, impact on jobs, trade, national security and maybe, Mr. President, most important, our national sovereignty. All of these dynamics will be explored before the December meeting in Kyoto, Japan, formally known as the ``Third Meeting of the Conference of Parties for the Framework Convention on Climate Change.'' Mr. President, this is clearly a very serious issue that demands a major national debate. The purpose of this resolution that Senator Byrd and I are offering today, with a number of our distinguished colleagues representing States from all over this country with varied economies, varied interests, is to begin that debate, to begin that debate today and to let the world know that the U.S. Senate intends to have a very serious and strong voice in shaping the American position on this global climate issue. Mr. President, thank you, and I yield back my time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am proud to serve as the principal Republican sponsor of this important legislation. I want to express my gratitude to my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for the dedication and leadership he has shown in bringing this issue before the U.S. Senate. I approach this issue from two perspectives. First, I've had a real life experience with this issue. My brother and I were wounded twice together in Vietnam as a result of landmines. Second, I am a strong supporter of our military. It's important that we not take any action that would inhibit the military's ability to fight and win wars, do their jobs, and maintain valuable weapons options and strategies. However, we are dealing with a different world than we fought in world wars, Korea and Vietnam. Our recent military actions have been actions where we've been in and out relatively quickly. I am concerned with the effects of laying down mines and then leaving them behind when our troops leave. There are already an estimated 110 million landmines in the ground around the world, and the destruction that these mines continue to inflict on innocent lives is devastating. It's the indiscriminate nature of their killing that makes landmines so hideous. I believe this legislation addresses a number of the concerns expressed by the military. Exemptions have been provided for when the military needs specific options, such as Korea and the use of antitank mines and claymores. We have a responsibility to those who've served and those who are now serving in the military and the peoples of the world to take a close look at this issue. This question comes down to, is this really a military option we need today? I don't believe it is. After careful study and consideration and seeking the opinions of many present and former military commanders, I have decided that America should show leadership on this issue. We can take the moral high ground and still insure a strong, flexible military. I am proud that my five Senate colleagues who are also Vietnam combat veterans have joined me in support of this legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am proud to serve as the principal Republican sponsor of this important legislation. I want to express my gratitude to my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for the dedication and leadership he has shown in bringing this issue before the U.S. Senate. I approach this issue from two perspectives. First, I've had a real life experience with this issue. My brother and I were wounded twice together in Vietnam as a result of landmines. Second, I am a strong supporter of our military. It's important that we not take any action that would inhibit the military's ability to fight and win wars, do their jobs, and maintain valuable weapons options and strategies. However, we are dealing with a different world than we fought in world wars, Korea and Vietnam. Our recent military actions have been actions where we've been in and out relatively quickly. I am concerned with the effects of laying down mines and then leaving them behind when our troops leave. There are already an estimated 110 million landmines in the ground around the world, and the destruction that these mines continue to inflict on innocent lives is devastating. It's the indiscriminate nature of their killing that makes landmines so hideous. I believe this legislation addresses a number of the concerns expressed by the military. Exemptions have been provided for when the military needs specific options, such as Korea and the use of antitank mines and claymores. We have a responsibility to those who've served and those who are now serving in the military and the peoples of the world to take a close look at this issue. This question comes down to, is this really a military option we need today? I don't believe it is. After careful study and consideration and seeking the opinions of many present and former military commanders, I have decided that America should show leadership on this issue. We can take the moral high ground and still insure a strong, flexible military. I am proud that my five Senate colleagues who are also Vietnam combat veterans have joined me in support of this legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Responsive Government Act. I am proud to be the principal cosponsor of this legislation, and I commend my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, for his leadership in introducing this bill. This bill would make Government agencies more responsive to the people who use their services. It is a narrow and targeted approach that addresses several of the most common complaints that Americans have about the service they receive from Government agencies. This bill would make the Federal Government more user-friendly by requiring all Federal agencies to: Include the telephone number of the author on all official correspondence so citizens know whom to contact and how to reach that person if there are questions; Provide a person, not an automated system, to answer the main telephone number at service-oriented Federal agencies so citizens do not have to talk to a machine; Ensure that telephones are answered until 5 p.m. so citizens can get assistance by phone during normal business hours; Publish principal telephone numbers in the local directories so citizens can readily find how to reach the agency; Attempt to locate service-oriented offices in areas with sufficient parking so citizens can come and go easily when doing business; and Remove computer games from all Federal Government computers so Federal employees are not distracted from their jobs. Mr. President, I ran for the U.S. Senate because I believe we need less Government. I also believe that we must make our Government better and more efficient. Federal agencies must always--always--be as user- friendly as possible for our citizens. Government agencies must always treat taxpayers with courtesy and respect. This bill is a small but important step toward creating a service- oriented climate in the Federal Government. Americans deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Responsive Government Act. I am proud to be the principal cosponsor of this legislation, and I commend my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, for his leadership in introducing this bill. This bill would make Government agencies more responsive to the people who use their services. It is a narrow and targeted approach that addresses several of the most common complaints that Americans have about the service they receive from Government agencies. This bill would make the Federal Government more user-friendly by requiring all Federal agencies to: Include the telephone number of the author on all official correspondence so citizens know whom to contact and how to reach that person if there are questions; Provide a person, not an automated system, to answer the main telephone number at service-oriented Federal agencies so citizens do not have to talk to a machine; Ensure that telephones are answered until 5 p.m. so citizens can get assistance by phone during normal business hours; Publish principal telephone numbers in the local directories so citizens can readily find how to reach the agency; Attempt to locate service-oriented offices in areas with sufficient parking so citizens can come and go easily when doing business; and Remove computer games from all Federal Government computers so Federal employees are not distracted from their jobs. Mr. President, I ran for the U.S. Senate because I believe we need less Government. I also believe that we must make our Government better and more efficient. Federal agencies must always--always--be as user- friendly as possible for our citizens. Government agencies must always treat taxpayers with courtesy and respect. This bill is a small but important step toward creating a service- oriented climate in the Federal Government. Americans deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, last Friday a distinguished former Member of the United States Senate, Roman Hruska, was honored during a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Federal courthouse to be constructed in downtown Omaha. This new Federal facility will be named the Roman L. Hruska United States Courthouse. I had the honor of knowing Senator Hruska when I served as administrative assistant to former Congressman John Y. McCollister (R- NE), my friend and mentor, in the 1970's. Senator Hruska served on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee as its ranking member. Several of my colleagues still serving today no doubt recall Senator Hruska and his contributions to our work here in the Senate. He is still going strong at 92 years of age and continues to stay involved in the Omaha community. Much of his work on the Senate Judiciary Committee remains with us today. Whether it was the creation of the Legal Services Corporation, revision of the Federal bankruptcy laws, reform of the Federal criminal code or amendments to the Federal antitrust laws, his imprint can be found. Senator Hruska always considered himself a work horse rather than a show horse and his numerous contributions to our Federal legal and justice system bear that out. That is why it is so fitting that the new Federal courthouse in Omaha has been named after him. His lifelong work as a public servant and lawyer was dedicated to making our system of laws fair, just, and workable for all citizens not just a privileged few. This is especially true with the Federal judiciary. Senator Hruska worked tirelessly to ensure that the Federal court system and the judiciary would be run by people of integrity, intellect, courage, and empathy for all the people--traits that he exhibited throughout his career. Mr. President, the new Hruska Courthouse is a welcome addition to downtown Omaha. It will meet the immediate needs of the Federal judiciary and other agencies that support the judicial system like the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorneys Office, U.S. Probation Service, U.S. Pretrial Service and several other Federal agencies. The complex is designed to permit future expansion if needed. It will fit the traditional solid architecture of downtown Omaha but have new technology to meet the demands of the 21st century. Mr. President, I ask that the remarks delivered by Senator Hruska at the groundbreaking ceremony be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks by Senator Roman L. Hruska It is with great humility that I thank my friends for their many kind remarks here this afternoon. In particular, I wish to single out the graciousness of my friend Jim Exon for his selfless contribution to this special honor I receive today. I also thank Senator Kerrey for his kind remarks. For me, there is no better way to join together my love for Nebraska, the City of Omaha, and a commitment to our system of justice and the federal judiciary than being honored by having my name associated with the new federal courthouse to be built on this site. Throughout my many years of service in Washington, DC, my heart still remained in Omaha. As I addressed the business of the U.S. Senate, the interests of Nebraska were always foremost in my mind. Since retiring from the Senate more than twenty years ago, I have tried to continue that commitment to our community. During my years as a public servant, I tried to follow a simple set of principles which I believe also represent the basic beliefs and feelings of my fellow Nebraskans. I believed then and still believe in less government, not more. I believed then and still believe that the courts should defer to the legislatures in the matter of law-making. I believed then and still believe that a truly independent judiciary of the highest order of excellence is essential to enforcement of the expressed will of the majority and the protection of the fundamental rights of those in the minority. I believed then and still believe that our judicial system is the last bulwark against attacks on individual liberty and freedom. Democracy and individual freedom are sometimes fragile things. Fortunately, they are now on the march around the world. Gratefully, they have become our birthright and will be further nurtured by this new complex. But, the challenge remains great. Crime, breakdown of the family, corruption and civil disorder are still present in our society; even here in Omaha. We need to support actively our police, prosecutors and judges as they carry out their important responsibilities to uphold the law. Looking at all of you assembled here and thinking about the many years I have devoted to public service, I am heartened for our future. Young leaders are emerging--many gathered here today--who will carry on the principles I believe in and who represent the best of our nation and state. I am gratified and truly humbled by this occasion. Thank you all for being here. Thank you all for your many kindnesses and courtesies over the years. Thank you all for this wonderful honor which you have bestowed upon me. God bless the State of Nebraska and God bless America.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I wish to add my thanks to my distinguished colleague from Missouri for his leadership on this bill. I rise today in support of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I will read a letter from a small businessperson, Gary Tharnish, in Lincoln, NE, dated April 30, 1997. I will read this because I think it does, in fact, cut directly to the essence of what this bill is about. As my distinguished colleague before me made very clear, this is a voluntary bill. This is not a mandate. This is about flexible work time for our men and women. I will read this letter from Gary Tharnish, the owner of Burton's Flowers: Dear Senator Hagel: It is my understanding that S-4, ``Compensatory Time'' will soon come to the floor for a vote. I would like to urge you to vote in favor of this bill. As a small business person my employees are begging me to offer them compensatory time. I explain to them I can not offer this. They do not understand the governments intrusion into their personal affairs. I would like to explain the situation an employee is in. Elaine is a mother of 3 children. This day and age it is so important for a mother to be home when her children get out of school. In order to make ends meet Elaine needs to work. Her options are a full time job and children home alone, or part time work. I offer her and 2 other women a part time job from 9:00 to 3:00 so they can be home when their kids get home. However in the summer they are not able to work. They would love to take their overtime pay and use it at that time. At Valentines Day and Mother's Day they receive a lot of overtime. They would love to use their ``time and a half'' hours to receive pay during the summer. Please, I am asking that you vote in favor of S-4. All Small Businesses and the thousands of constituents working for them will benefit. Sincerely, Gary J. Tharnish. Madam President, this really does say it very effectively, very succinctly, and I think it encompasses what we are trying to do with this bill. I ask my colleagues to spend some time in the remaining minutes that we have, reviewing their own constituencies, reviewing their own situations for their own workers in their States. I strongly urge cloture be invoked this afternoon and my colleagues vote in favor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

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