Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the passing of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a loss for all of us. Pat Moynihan committed his remarkable life to his country: serving four Presidents, representing our Nation as Ambassador to India and the United Nations, and representing the State of New York as a Senator. His deep intellect and unyielding candor will be missed. As a junior colleague, I was struck by Senator Moynihan's generosity with his time and graciousness of spirit. I had the privilege of sitting next to Senator Moynihan on the trip to Rhode Island for the funeral of our colleague the late Senator John Chafee. As we traveled, I was out of my depth listening to him discuss different styles of architecture in between offering endearing stories about our departed colleague. Of all his gifts, Pat Moynihan's ability to recognize great issues before they were commonly observed was his greatest. In public policy, he had an ability to appreciate and make sense of the larger picture rarely found in a politician. From the plight of broken families and inner cities, to the collapse of the Soviet Union, to the danger of ethnic conflict in the Balkans, to Social Security reform, Moynihan was prophetic. In one of his last public speeches, at last year's Harvard Commencement, Moynihan again offered words that carry far more weight today than when he delivered them less than a year ago: Certainly we must not let ourselves be seen as rushing about the world looking for arguments. There are now American armed forces in some 40 countries overseas. Some would say too many. Nor should we let ourselves be seen as ignoring allies, disillusioning friends, thinking only of ourselves in the most narrow terms. That is not how we survived the 20th century. Nor will it serve in the 21st. Senator Moynihan's wit and wisdom will be greatly missed. My thoughts and prayers go to Liz Moynihan and the Moynihan family.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we will all miss our dear friend Dr. Lloyd J. Ogilvie. His distinguished service to the Senate has been an important part of this institution during this historic time. Since he was appointed Senate Chaplain in 1995, Dr. Ogilvie has offered guidance, support, and prayers to Senators, their staffs, and our families. He has greatly enhanced the Office of Senate Chaplain that was instituted at the Senate's first meeting in 1789. Dr. Ogilvie's ministry has been a ballast and a bridge for Senators on both sides of the aisle. His spiritual leadership has been strong. His service has been selfless. As he takes up his work outside of the Senate, Lilibet and I wish to express our profound gratitude for the inspiration and wisdom he has shared with so many of us. We cherish our friendship with Lloyd and Mary Jane. May God bless both of them.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I congratulate our dear colleague, Senator Dick Lugar from Indiana, for his remarkable service to our country in many ways, not just through his leadership and years and votes in the Senate; prior to his time in the Senate, his service to our country in the U.S. Navy and all the other contributions he has made. It is a remarkable morning for our country to recognize this remarkable individual.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise this morning to join my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the new Homestead Act. We have heard from Senator Dorgan as to why many believe this issue, this challenge, needs attention. He laid some of those reasons out rather clearly. Senator Dorgan and I and others introduced this legislation last year. The intent of this legislation is simple. It aims to help reverse the trend of population decline in rural areas and provide growth and opportunities in rural America. Many communities in rural America have not shared in the boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. Instead, this out-migration of individuals and resources is taking a high toll on rural America. Over the last 50 years, nonmetropolitan counties in the Nation lost more than a third of their population, about 34 percent. Contrast this with the fact that during the same period the number of people living in metropolitan areas grew by over 150 percent. Today, Nebraska is one of the States hardest hit by out-migration. Of 93 counties in Nebraska, 56 have lost at least 10 percent of residents due to out-migration over the past 2 years. According to the University of Nebraska report, most of these counties will see similar population losses over the next 2 decades without an expansion of nonagriculture industry. Why are people leaving rural America? It is rather simple: For jobs and opportunities. One of the main provisions of our legislation addresses this issue by providing incentives to small businesses and other enterprises to locate and expand in rural areas. Small businesses are a critical element of the rural economy, as they are to all of America, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all rural jobs. Our legislation builds upon the same spirit of the Homestead Act of 1862 which gave land to individuals who were willing to live and work in unsettled areas of the country. In fact, the first claim made under this act was just outside Beatrice, NE. Our bill targets three different categories: Individuals, businesses, and capital formation. For individuals who live in or move to high out- migration counties, the legislation provides, as Senator Dorgan mentioned, three basic things: The college loan repayments and home tax credits, individual homestead accounts, rural investment tax credits, and a venture capital fund. Last year, in the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus called the bill a big idea. Indeed, it is a big idea. But it is the kind of big idea we need to help reverse the decline of rural America--not just the Midwest--but all of rural America. I am proud of the fact our bill has the bipartisan support of 10 cosponsors and it has the endorsement of a diverse coalition of organizations across this country, all kinds of organizations. I am pleased again to be working with my friend, Senator Dorgan, in reintroducing this legislation. I ask my colleagues in this body to learn more about the aim, the specifics of this legislation, and that they would help and join us in addressing the challenges facing rural areas across our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to support the resolution of ratification of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions--or, as we call it, the Moscow Treaty--now before the Senate. The Moscow Treaty represents a shared commitment by the United States and Russia to step back from the cold war policies of nuclear confrontation and enter into a new era of cooperation. This is to assure that our nuclear weapons no longer threaten either our peoples or our civilization. It was the bold vision of President Ronald Reagan, 17 years ago, at the Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik that set in motion this effort to make dramatic reductions in the nuclear weapons arsenals of the United States and then the Soviet Union. President Reagan's vision, once considered by some a fantasy or a negotiating ploy, is becoming the standard by which we should measure our success in arms control. The Moscow Treaty avoids the strategic gamesmanship and pitfalls of the SALT treaties, the ABM Treaty, and other negotiations of the cold war. The simplicity of this treaty, only three pages in length, betrayed its historic significance for United States-Russian relations and for global security. Its strength is the power of its objective, to dramatically reduce American and Russian strategic weapons. On November 13, 2001, President Bush announced that the United States would reduce its strategic nuclear arsenal by two-thirds, from approximately 6,000 nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons by December 31, 2012. The President made this determination independent of what Russia would do, knowing that these reductions would be in the overall strategic interest of the United States. President Putin determined that comparable reductions would also be in his country's own national security interest. On May 24, 2002, Bush and Putin agreed that their commitment to these reductions would take the form of a legally binding treaty. The negotiations over the Moscow Treaty did not fall into the traps of previous arms control agreements negotiated with the Soviet Union during the cold war. That is as much a testimony to the new spirit of U.S.-Russian relations and the realities of today's threats as it is to the strength of the treaty. For example, it took the United States Senate 3 years to ratify the START II treaty. It took the Russian Duma 7 years for ratification. And both sides put conditions unacceptable to the other side on the respective ratification agreements. As a result, that agreement never went into force. Instead of years of back and forth negotiations, with each side seeking a strategic advantage, the Moscow Treaty illustrates a turning point in America's relationship with Russia. It should provide an environment conducive to future arms control negotiations. The Resolution of Ratification before us today introduces just two straightforward conditions that complement rather than complicate the treaty. First, the administration must report to the Senate annually on how the United States plans to reach the required reduction goals. While this resolution does not set a rigid timetable, these reports will allow the Senate to oversee the implementation of this treaty. The second condition deals with the Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar programs. Russia is committed to meeting these reductions, but the question remains if Russia has the resources to meet them. The Nunn-Lugar program has been successful in assisting the former states of the Soviet Union to help reduce their nuclear arsenals. The Resolution of Ratification rightly includes Nunn-Lugar programs as instrumental in achieving lasting and durable arms reduction. The Moscow Treaty should not be considered as the final chapter in U.S.-Russian arms control, but it is an important and historic step forward. The United States and Russia must do more to prevent the proliferation of dual use technology and weapons of mass destruction to Iran, North Korea, and other countries. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction programs are crucial to our shared security interests in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destructions. For us to succeed in making a safer world, Washington and Moscow must be strategic partners, not strategic adversaries. The Bush Administration, Chairman Lugar, Senator biden, and others who have framed the Treaty and the Resolution of Ratification deserve credit and thanks for their leadership and steady focus. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution without amendments, for the very reasons Senator Biden articulated just minutes ago, and to understand the broader context and significance of this treaty for U.S.-Russian relations and global security. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak briefly about an important, comprehensive fuels bill that I will introduce today, along with Senators Daschle, Lugar, Johnson, Voinovich, Grassley, and others. This bill aims to enhance air and water quality, reduce supply and distribution challengers in the gasoline market, and increase energy security by expanding the use of clean, domestically produced renewable fuels. Specifically, our bill follows the advice of the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates by repealing the Federal oxygenate mandate and phasing out the use of MTBE nationwide. It also contains a reasonable Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, which would gradually increase the nation's use of renewable fuel to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. All of this while protecting the environmental gains already made by the reformulated gasoline program. This legislation mirrors the bipartisan fuels agreement in last year's Senate energy bill, which gained the votes of 69 Senators. This year, we have worked to build an even broader, bipartisan coalition of cosponsors. Much has happened since the Senate passed its energy bill last year. The renewable fuels industry has expanded considerably to meet growing demand. The ethanol industry opened 12 new plants last year, with 10 additional plants now under construction. Sixteen of these new plants are farmer-owned co-operatives. By the end of 2003, annual ethanol production capacity is expected to exceed 3 billion gallons. In December the ethanol industry wrapped up a record year--2.13 billion gallons in 2002, up by more than 20 percent over 2001. Also, ChevronTexaco announced last month that it will switch from blending MTBE to blending ethanol in the southern California market-- making Chevron the last of the large California refiners to make the switch to ethanol. This means that more than 80 percent of California's federally-reformulated gasoline will be blended with ethanol by May 2003. We should not forget that biodiesel, made primarily from soybeans and still a developing fuel technology, has grown enough that it is now used in more than 200 State and Federal automobile fleets--using a 20- percent blend or higher. Today, 16 States have already banned MTBE. With State MTBE bans will come increased challenges to fuel distribution and supply. The national phase-down of MTBE proposed in this bill will help us meet these challenges. And a national Renewable Fuels Standard with a credit and trading program will ensure that renewable fuels are used where they make the most sense. In fact, according to a recent analysis, enacting this fuels bill would even reduce refiner costs, .2 cents, per gallon compared to current law. The Standard in our legislation is a fair and workable compromise new crafted nearly a year ago--after months of work the American Petroleum Institute, the environmental community, the Northeast air directors, agricultural groups, DOE, EPA and others. Senator Daschle and I helped facilitate those talks. We crafted the language of last year's fuels agreement--the same language in this bill. This is not a per-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult. Our Nation needs a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio. Today, less than one percent of America's transportation fuel comes from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply--tripling the amount of renewable fuel we now use. Today, America imports nearly sixty percent of the crude oil it consumes. This amount is estimated to climb to 70 percent by 2002. Almost a fourth of America's oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. Last year, the United States imported nearly half-a-million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. Overall, petroleum imports cost the United States more than $100 billion a year--around 25 percent of our trade deficit. This country consumers more than 300 billion gallons of crude oil a year--of that, 165 billion gallons is refined into gasoline and diesel. Our legislation says that by 2012, not less then 5 billion gallons of that 165 billion gallons shall come from renewable sources. By enacting this legislation, we would replace 66 billion gallons of foreign crude oil by 2012; reduce foreign oil purchases by $34 billion; create more than 200,000 jobs nationwide; and boost U.S. farm income by more than $6 billion a year. As the new Congress prepares to resume deliberations on a new national energy plan, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider this legislation--which will assist our efforts to modernize the Nation's transportation fuel system and address the environmental, energy and security concerns for today and tomorrow.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak briefly about an important, comprehensive fuels bill that I will introduce today, along with Senators Daschle, Lugar, Johnson, Voinovich, Grassley, and others. This bill aims to enhance air and water quality, reduce supply and distribution challengers in the gasoline market, and increase energy security by expanding the use of clean, domestically produced renewable fuels. Specifically, our bill follows the advice of the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates by repealing the Federal oxygenate mandate and phasing out the use of MTBE nationwide. It also contains a reasonable Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, which would gradually increase the nation's use of renewable fuel to 5 billion gallons a year by 2012. All of this while protecting the environmental gains already made by the reformulated gasoline program. This legislation mirrors the bipartisan fuels agreement in last year's Senate energy bill, which gained the votes of 69 Senators. This year, we have worked to build an even broader, bipartisan coalition of cosponsors. Much has happened since the Senate passed its energy bill last year. The renewable fuels industry has expanded considerably to meet growing demand. The ethanol industry opened 12 new plants last year, with 10 additional plants now under construction. Sixteen of these new plants are farmer-owned co-operatives. By the end of 2003, annual ethanol production capacity is expected to exceed 3 billion gallons. In December the ethanol industry wrapped up a record year--2.13 billion gallons in 2002, up by more than 20 percent over 2001. Also, ChevronTexaco announced last month that it will switch from blending MTBE to blending ethanol in the southern California market-- making Chevron the last of the large California refiners to make the switch to ethanol. This means that more than 80 percent of California's federally-reformulated gasoline will be blended with ethanol by May 2003. We should not forget that biodiesel, made primarily from soybeans and still a developing fuel technology, has grown enough that it is now used in more than 200 State and Federal automobile fleets--using a 20- percent blend or higher. Today, 16 States have already banned MTBE. With State MTBE bans will come increased challenges to fuel distribution and supply. The national phase-down of MTBE proposed in this bill will help us meet these challenges. And a national Renewable Fuels Standard with a credit and trading program will ensure that renewable fuels are used where they make the most sense. In fact, according to a recent analysis, enacting this fuels bill would even reduce refiner costs, .2 cents, per gallon compared to current law. The Standard in our legislation is a fair and workable compromise new crafted nearly a year ago--after months of work the American Petroleum Institute, the environmental community, the Northeast air directors, agricultural groups, DOE, EPA and others. Senator Daschle and I helped facilitate those talks. We crafted the language of last year's fuels agreement--the same language in this bill. This is not a per-gallon mandate. It will not force a specific level of compliance in places where compliance may be difficult. Our Nation needs a broader, deeper and more diverse energy portfolio. Today, less than one percent of America's transportation fuel comes from renewable sources. Under this energy bill, renewable fuel use would increase to approximately 3 percent of our total transportation fuel supply--tripling the amount of renewable fuel we now use. Today, America imports nearly sixty percent of the crude oil it consumes. This amount is estimated to climb to 70 percent by 2002. Almost a fourth of America's oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. Last year, the United States imported nearly half-a-million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. Overall, petroleum imports cost the United States more than $100 billion a year--around 25 percent of our trade deficit. This country consumers more than 300 billion gallons of crude oil a year--of that, 165 billion gallons is refined into gasoline and diesel. Our legislation says that by 2012, not less then 5 billion gallons of that 165 billion gallons shall come from renewable sources. By enacting this legislation, we would replace 66 billion gallons of foreign crude oil by 2012; reduce foreign oil purchases by $34 billion; create more than 200,000 jobs nationwide; and boost U.S. farm income by more than $6 billion a year. As the new Congress prepares to resume deliberations on a new national energy plan, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider this legislation--which will assist our efforts to modernize the Nation's transportation fuel system and address the environmental, energy and security concerns for today and tomorrow.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise in support of drought disaster aid for America's drought-stricken agricultural producers and to support the Cochran amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill. I wish to also express my thanks to Chairman Stevens, Chairman Cochran, and their staffs for their hard work and especially for finding the necessary critical funding to offset the spending in the bill. Those of us in drought-stricken States have known for many months that our farmers and ranchers needed assistance. Unfortunately, in a year when 80 percent of U.S. counties were declared a disaster, the House and Senate adjourned last November with neither Chamber having passed 2002 drought aid. There is no doubt that disaster relief is justified. In Nebraska, only the Dust Bowl years of 1934 and 1936 were dryer than what the State experienced last summer. Since autumn, conditions have only worsened throughout much of the Plains, as well as most of the West and Southwest. This has been one of the driest winters in these regions in more than 100 years. Nebraska officials are becoming increasingly concerned about irrigation resources for the upcoming growing season. The water level at Lake McConaughy, Nebraska's largest reservoir, is 60 percent below capacity. With the Federal budget deficit projected to balloon near $300 billion in this fiscal year, Congress must demonstrate fiscal responsibility. The days of budget surpluses are gone, but at the same time we must turn our attention to this much-needed drought assistance. Under this proposal, the Cochran amendment, disaster payments would get more attention more quickly than under the old crop disaster formula, and we would help a larger number of farmers and ranchers. Months ago, the President made it clear that any disaster aid for agriculture must be offset. Last week, White House agriculture adviser Chuck Conner reiterated this requirement, telling farm groups that all disaster aid proposals would be judged upon three criteria: One, cost; two, available budget offsets; and, three, whether farmers would be more self-reliant in the end. The Cochran amendment complies with the President's request. I urge my colleagues to support the proposal of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior Senator from Texas in introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. He has worked a decade on this proposal, and I want to ensure that, as he leaves this distinguished body in a few short weeks, his time and effort will not have been wasted, for the stakes are far too high. Everyone knows that America's demographics are rapidly changing. In just nine short years, in 2011, the first of my generation of baby boomers will retire. In the 20 years thereafter, the number of Americans aged 65 and older will grow four times as fast as the number of working Americans. Under the current system, where no real investments are ever made and current benefits are paid entirely by taxing current workers, how do we expect to pay for this shift in demographics? In 2015, Social Security will be distributing more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and by 2038, the system will be completely bankrupt. Congress will be forced to either raise taxes on the next generation of workers by nearly 40 percent or cut the benefits of retirees by nearly 30 percent. If we continue to defer the difficult decisions on how we fix the system, that will be the position we will find ourselves in. If we begin now, however, we can stabilize and enhance the system before it is scheduled to go broke. But we must start now. In his message to Congress on Social Security in 1935, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a Social Security system of ``voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.'' This bill embraces that vision, and will strengthen and permanently preserve Social Security by actually making investments. All workers will have the option of investing a portion of their wages into accounts that earn a higher rate of return. Upon retirement, these investing workers would use the money in their accounts to purchase an annuity to pay benefits promised under the current system plus a bonus for participating in the new system. They could keep any excess. All workers, both those who invest and those who choose to remain in the current system, would be guaranteed every dollar of their currently promised benefit. No worker would ever experience a cut in benefits or a hike in taxes at any time. And when fully implemented, these changes to Social Security will yield benefits over two times those currently provided to an average worker. And the system's coming insolvency in 2038 would be reversed. It is time for our Nation to confront Social Security's impending financial crisis. For too long, we have ignored our nation's changing demographics which will result in a crushing burden being placed on our Social Security and Medicare systems if we don't deal with this challenge now. It will demand either higher taxes or reduced benefits later if we continue to defer our responsibilities. For too long, we have feared open and informative debate about reforming the Social Security system, believing that the American people are unwilling to consider the realities that we face. Politicians have been afraid of the political risks in honestly dealing with Social Security. The Congress and the President must face up to their responsibilities in dealing with this challenge. I will reintroduce this legislation to reform the Social Security system at the beginning of the next Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues and President Bush in this effort.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior Senator from Texas in introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. He has worked a decade on this proposal, and I want to ensure that, as he leaves this distinguished body in a few short weeks, his time and effort will not have been wasted, for the stakes are far too high. Everyone knows that America's demographics are rapidly changing. In just nine short years, in 2011, the first of my generation of baby boomers will retire. In the 20 years thereafter, the number of Americans aged 65 and older will grow four times as fast as the number of working Americans. Under the current system, where no real investments are ever made and current benefits are paid entirely by taxing current workers, how do we expect to pay for this shift in demographics? In 2015, Social Security will be distributing more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and by 2038, the system will be completely bankrupt. Congress will be forced to either raise taxes on the next generation of workers by nearly 40 percent or cut the benefits of retirees by nearly 30 percent. If we continue to defer the difficult decisions on how we fix the system, that will be the position we will find ourselves in. If we begin now, however, we can stabilize and enhance the system before it is scheduled to go broke. But we must start now. In his message to Congress on Social Security in 1935, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a Social Security system of ``voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.'' This bill embraces that vision, and will strengthen and permanently preserve Social Security by actually making investments. All workers will have the option of investing a portion of their wages into accounts that earn a higher rate of return. Upon retirement, these investing workers would use the money in their accounts to purchase an annuity to pay benefits promised under the current system plus a bonus for participating in the new system. They could keep any excess. All workers, both those who invest and those who choose to remain in the current system, would be guaranteed every dollar of their currently promised benefit. No worker would ever experience a cut in benefits or a hike in taxes at any time. And when fully implemented, these changes to Social Security will yield benefits over two times those currently provided to an average worker. And the system's coming insolvency in 2038 would be reversed. It is time for our Nation to confront Social Security's impending financial crisis. For too long, we have ignored our nation's changing demographics which will result in a crushing burden being placed on our Social Security and Medicare systems if we don't deal with this challenge now. It will demand either higher taxes or reduced benefits later if we continue to defer our responsibilities. For too long, we have feared open and informative debate about reforming the Social Security system, believing that the American people are unwilling to consider the realities that we face. Politicians have been afraid of the political risks in honestly dealing with Social Security. The Congress and the President must face up to their responsibilities in dealing with this challenge. I will reintroduce this legislation to reform the Social Security system at the beginning of the next Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues and President Bush in this effort.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior Senator from Texas in introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. He has worked a decade on this proposal, and I want to ensure that, as he leaves this distinguished body in a few short weeks, his time and effort will not have been wasted, for the stakes are far too high. Everyone knows that America's demographics are rapidly changing. In just nine short years, in 2011, the first of my generation of baby boomers will retire. In the 20 years thereafter, the number of Americans aged 65 and older will grow four times as fast as the number of working Americans. Under the current system, where no real investments are ever made and current benefits are paid entirely by taxing current workers, how do we expect to pay for this shift in demographics? In 2015, Social Security will be distributing more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and by 2038, the system will be completely bankrupt. Congress will be forced to either raise taxes on the next generation of workers by nearly 40 percent or cut the benefits of retirees by nearly 30 percent. If we continue to defer the difficult decisions on how we fix the system, that will be the position we will find ourselves in. If we begin now, however, we can stabilize and enhance the system before it is scheduled to go broke. But we must start now. In his message to Congress on Social Security in 1935, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a Social Security system of ``voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.'' This bill embraces that vision, and will strengthen and permanently preserve Social Security by actually making investments. All workers will have the option of investing a portion of their wages into accounts that earn a higher rate of return. Upon retirement, these investing workers would use the money in their accounts to purchase an annuity to pay benefits promised under the current system plus a bonus for participating in the new system. They could keep any excess. All workers, both those who invest and those who choose to remain in the current system, would be guaranteed every dollar of their currently promised benefit. No worker would ever experience a cut in benefits or a hike in taxes at any time. And when fully implemented, these changes to Social Security will yield benefits over two times those currently provided to an average worker. And the system's coming insolvency in 2038 would be reversed. It is time for our Nation to confront Social Security's impending financial crisis. For too long, we have ignored our nation's changing demographics which will result in a crushing burden being placed on our Social Security and Medicare systems if we don't deal with this challenge now. It will demand either higher taxes or reduced benefits later if we continue to defer our responsibilities. For too long, we have feared open and informative debate about reforming the Social Security system, believing that the American people are unwilling to consider the realities that we face. Politicians have been afraid of the political risks in honestly dealing with Social Security. The Congress and the President must face up to their responsibilities in dealing with this challenge. I will reintroduce this legislation to reform the Social Security system at the beginning of the next Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues and President Bush in this effort.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior Senator from Texas in introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. He has worked a decade on this proposal, and I want to ensure that, as he leaves this distinguished body in a few short weeks, his time and effort will not have been wasted, for the stakes are far too high. Everyone knows that America's demographics are rapidly changing. In just nine short years, in 2011, the first of my generation of baby boomers will retire. In the 20 years thereafter, the number of Americans aged 65 and older will grow four times as fast as the number of working Americans. Under the current system, where no real investments are ever made and current benefits are paid entirely by taxing current workers, how do we expect to pay for this shift in demographics? In 2015, Social Security will be distributing more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, and by 2038, the system will be completely bankrupt. Congress will be forced to either raise taxes on the next generation of workers by nearly 40 percent or cut the benefits of retirees by nearly 30 percent. If we continue to defer the difficult decisions on how we fix the system, that will be the position we will find ourselves in. If we begin now, however, we can stabilize and enhance the system before it is scheduled to go broke. But we must start now. In his message to Congress on Social Security in 1935, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a Social Security system of ``voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.'' This bill embraces that vision, and will strengthen and permanently preserve Social Security by actually making investments. All workers will have the option of investing a portion of their wages into accounts that earn a higher rate of return. Upon retirement, these investing workers would use the money in their accounts to purchase an annuity to pay benefits promised under the current system plus a bonus for participating in the new system. They could keep any excess. All workers, both those who invest and those who choose to remain in the current system, would be guaranteed every dollar of their currently promised benefit. No worker would ever experience a cut in benefits or a hike in taxes at any time. And when fully implemented, these changes to Social Security will yield benefits over two times those currently provided to an average worker. And the system's coming insolvency in 2038 would be reversed. It is time for our Nation to confront Social Security's impending financial crisis. For too long, we have ignored our nation's changing demographics which will result in a crushing burden being placed on our Social Security and Medicare systems if we don't deal with this challenge now. It will demand either higher taxes or reduced benefits later if we continue to defer our responsibilities. For too long, we have feared open and informative debate about reforming the Social Security system, believing that the American people are unwilling to consider the realities that we face. Politicians have been afraid of the political risks in honestly dealing with Social Security. The Congress and the President must face up to their responsibilities in dealing with this challenge. I will reintroduce this legislation to reform the Social Security system at the beginning of the next Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues and President Bush in this effort.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to recognize my friend the Senior Senator from Tennessee. Fred Thompson will retire this year after eight distinguished years in the Senate. He has packed a great deal in those eight years. He has been a forceful leader who has made significant contributions to our country in a short amount time. Senator Thompson was born and raised in Lawrenceburg, TN, a little town sited by the great frontiersman and Congressman Davy Crockett. Like Crockett, Senator Thompson charted a path in life that has allowed him to use his character and great abilities for interests larger than himself. He received his undergraduate degree from Memphis State University and completed his law degree at Vanderbilt University in 1967. In 1973 and '74, Senator Thompson served as minority counsel to the vice chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, his mentor, Senator, now Ambassador, Howard Baker. He served as Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator Thompson is among the most junior Senators in the history of the Senate to have ever served as Chairman of a Standing Senate Committee. But Senator Thompson's skills and talents go far beyond his contributions to the Senate. He is also a very fine actor, not withstanding Senator McCain's critiques of his performances. He has an expansive list of movie and television roles that highlight his commanding presence and impressive style. We will continue to enjoy seeing him shine in his renewed acting career. He's had excellent real life practice in the Senate. We will miss Fred Thompson. We will miss his common sense, sharp wit and decency. All of his friends in the Senate wish Fred and his new bride, Jeri, all the best in their new lives together. I am proud to have served with him.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, the Senate is, by design, a deliberative institution. Over this past week, we have witnessed thoughtful debate and commentary on how to meet the challenge of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Ours is not an academic exercise; debate informs our decision whether to authorize the President to use force if necessary to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with Iraqi disarmament. There are no easy answers in Iraq. The decision to commit our troops to war is the most difficult decision Members of Congress make. Each course of action we consider in Iraq leads us into imperfect, dangerous, and unknown situations. But we cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The President cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The risks of inaction are too high. We are elected to solve problems, not just debate them. The time has come to chart a new course in Iraq and in the Middle East. History informs our debate and our decisions. We know tyranny cannot be appeased. We also know our power and influence are enhanced by both a nobility of purpose and the support of allies and institutions that reinforce an international commitment to peace and prosperity. We know war has its own dynamic, that it favors neither ideology, nor democracy, nor tyranny, that men and women die, and that nations and individuals who know war are never again the same. President Bush has rightly brought the case against Iraq back before the United Nations. Our problems with Iraq, as well as terrorism and the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are not America's alone. Israel, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq's own Kurdish population, and other nations and peoples are on the front lines of Saddam Hussein's ambitions for weapons of mass death. The United Nations, with American leadership, must act decisively to end Saddam Hussein's decade-long violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. America's best case for the possible use of force against Iraq rests with the American and international commitment to enforcing Iraq's disarmament. The diplomatic process is not easy, and we face the competing interests and demands of Russia, France, China, and others, whose interests in Iraq may not always be the same as ours. A regional and international coalition is essential for creating the political environment that will be required for any action we take in Iraq, and especially for how we sustain a democratic transition in a post-Saddam Iraq. We cannot do it alone. America--including the Congress--and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism. Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions. Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force. America's challenge in this new century will be to strengthen its relationships around the world while leading the world in our war on terrorism, for it is the success of the first challenge that will determine the success of the second. We should not mistake our foreign policy priorities for ideology in a rush to proclaim a new doctrine in world affairs. America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners. American leadership in the world will be further defined by our actions in Iraq and the Middle East. What begins in Iraq will not end in Iraq. There will be other ``Iraqs.'' There will be continued acts of terrorism, proliferating powers, and regional conflicts. If we do it right and lead through the U.N., in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and international cooperation. The perception of American power is power, and how our power is perceived can either magnify or diminish our influence in the world. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility and an institutional obligation in this effort. Federalist Paper No. 63 specifically notes the responsibilities of the Senate in foreign affairs as follows: An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is that, in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can always be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind? Remarkable words. The resolution before us today should be tried in that same light as the Federalist Papers points out. The original resolution proposed by the Bush administration, S.J. Res. 45, would have been a setback for this institution. It did not reflect the best democratic traditions of either Congressional-Executive relations, or the conduct of American foreign policy. S.J. Res. 46, sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, and Bayh, is a far more responsible and accountable document than the one we started with 3 weeks ago. I congratulate my colleagues, especially Senators Lugar, Biden, and Daschle, and the four sponsors of this resolution, for their efforts and leadership in getting it to this point. S.J. Res. 46 narrows the authorization for the use of force to all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defending our national interests against the threats posed by Iraq. It includes support for U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.; a requirement that, before taking action, the President formally determines that diplomatic or other peaceful means will not be adequate in meeting our objectives; reference to the war powers resolution requirements; and periodic reports to Congress that include those actions described in the section of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 regarding assistance and support for Iraq upon replacement of Saddam Hussein. This resolution recognizes Congress as a coequal partner in dealing with the threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism, and a bit more humility. While the people of the Arab world need no education from America about Saddam's record of deceit, aggression, and brutality, and while many of them may respect and desire the freedoms the American model offers, imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task. To succeed, our commitment must extend beyond the day after to the months and years after Saddam is gone. The American people must be told of this long-term commitment, risk, and costs of this undertaking. We should not be seduced by the expectations of ``dancing in the streets'' after Saddam's regime has fallen, the kites, the candy, and cheering crowds we expect to greet our troops, but instead, focus on the great challenges ahead, the commitment and resources that will be needed to ensure a democratic transition in Iraq and a more stable and peaceful Middle East. We should spend more time debating the cost and extent of this commitment, the risks we may face in military engagement with Iraq, the implications of the precedent of United States military action for regime change, and the likely character and challenges of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions. We need only look to Afghanistan where the Afghan people joyously welcomed our liberation force but, months later, a fragile transition government grapples with rebuilding a fractured political culture, economy, and country. However, Iraq, because of its resources, geography, capabilities, history, and people, offers even more complications and greater peril and, yes, greater opportunities and greater promise. This is the vast unknown, the heavy burden that lies ahead. The Senate should not cast a vote in the hopes of putting Iraq behind us so we can get back to our campaigns or move on to other issues next year. The decision to possibly commit a nation to war cannot and should not ever be considered in the context of either party loyalty or campaign politics. I regret that this vote will take place under the cloud and pressure of elections next month. Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in political campaigns. It might have been better for our vote to have been delayed until after the elections, as it was in 1990. Authorizing the use of force against Iraq or any country for any purpose should always be weighed on its own merits, not with an eye on the politics of the vote or campaign TV spots. War is too serious, the human price too high, and the implications unforeseen. While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control. In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours. America cannot trade a new focus on Iraq for a lesser effort in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians continues, and the danger mounts. Stability in Afghanistan is not assured. We must carry through with our commitment. Stability in this region depends on it. America's credibility is at stake, and long- term stability in central and South Asia hangs in the balance. We must also continue to pay close attention to North Korea where there is no guesswork about nuclear weapons. There on the Korean peninsula reside nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and 37,000 American troops. Despite setting the right course for disarmament in Iraq, the administration has yet to define an end game in Iraq or explain the extent of the American commitment if regime change is required, or describe how our actions in Iraq might affect our other many interests and commitments around the world. I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world. America has continued to take on large, complicated, and expensive responsibilities that will place heavy burdens on all of us over the next generation. It may well be necessary, but Americans should understand the extent of this burden and what may be required to pay for it and support it in both American blood and trade. As the Congress votes on this resolution, we must understand that we have not put Iraqi issues behind us. This is just the beginning. The risks should not be understated, miscast, or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts. We in the Congress are men and women of many parts. For me, it is the present-day Senator, the former soldier, or concerned father who guides my judgment and ultimate vote? It is pieces of all, for I am pieces of all. The responsibilities of each lead me to support the Lieberman- McCain-Warner-Bayh resolution, for which I will vote. In the end, each of us who has the high honor of holding public office has the burden and privilege of decision and responsibilities. It is a sacred trust we share with the public. We will be held accountable for our actions, as it must be. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join our colleagues in recognizing a part of an institution that unto himself is an institution. Senator Helms will retire this year after five distinguished terms in the Senate. He has had a remarkable 30 years of service in the Senate. Senator Helms began his service to our country in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He has always been a supporter of a strong U.S. military and the need for a forward thinking National Security Policy. After his military service, Senator Helms had a colorful career as an editorial commentator in radio, television and print media. He also served as Administrative Assistant to United States Senators Willis Smith (D-NC) and Alton Lennon (D-NC) in the early 1950's. His interest in serving the public continued to grow as he served on the Raleigh City Council from 1957 to 1961 while working in the banking industry. Beyond his extensive list of leadership positions in numerous organizations, Senator Helms has filled his life with philanthropy. He has been active in research on cerebral palsy and is one of the founders and directors of Camp Willow Run for youth in Littleton, North Carolina. Senator Helms is a member of the Committee on Rules and Administration; a member and past Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; and the Ranking Minority member and past Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I have had the privilege to serve with Senator Helms on the Foreign Relations Committee for the past 6 years. We will miss his common sense and strong perspective on foreign affairs. I am grateful for his many courtesies to me and his constant help and support. I will miss him. Senator Helms will celebrate his 81st birthday this month. We wish him a happy birthday and thank him and his dear wife, Dot, for their years of devotion to our country. I am proud to have served with him. Mr. President, as you know, I am a very junior Senator here and so I do not have the depth of relationship with Senator Helms as do many who have gone before me this morning. But I have served with Jesse Helms for 6 years, 4 of those under his tutelage as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I don't know of a Senator with whom I have served in my short term in this body who has been more fair, more direct, and more complete than Jesse Helms. I think that is in itself a great testament to the man, yes, and to the Senator. I have not always agreed with Senator Helms, but he has always afforded me the courtesy of not only an opportunity to explain my position but encouraged me to explain my position, even when he disagreed. That, too, is a measurement of the man and of the Senator. You especially, Mr. President, know that west of the Missouri in the land on the prairie called Nebraska, we have fallen on dark times. I don't speak of the drought but of our football team. I never thought I would be in a position to be envious of the football team of the senior Senator from North Carolina, but I am this morning. I, of course, attribute his leadership and inspiration to their great football team this year. His wife Dot has been mentioned this morning, and I wish also to acknowledge Mrs. Helms, for it is Mrs. Helms, as much as any one individual who has shaped and molded this fellow from North Carolina, this individual who not only has given 30 years of his life to the Senate, but has given a great majority of his almost 81 years to this country. Some of us who have had the honor of serving our Nation in uniform more recently than Senator Helms occasionally get more attention for that service. This has always struck me about the World War II generation, of which Jesse Helms is a part. He served in the U.S. Navy in World War II. They never talk about that service. My father was in World War II in the South Pacific for 3 years in the Army Air Corps. I have always admired World War II veterans for many reasons, but one in particular; that is, they came back, never asked for recognition, never asked for special breaks. They saw their service as only part of being a responsible citizen--their responsibility. And it is that way to this day in the Senate, where we have few World War II veterans left. When we lose a World War II veteran in this body, we lose a very significant part of America. That is a dimension of Jesse Helms that is not often talked about. Let me conclude, because others wish to speak about this very unique Senator and man. I don't know of an individual who has fulfilled the commitment of his own value system and his own standards, or lived it, like Jesse Helms has. You either can agree with those commitments and standards and policies and values and positions or not, but none can deny that Senator Helms has indeed lived what he has said. That in itself, after almost 81 years, is rather unique. I wish Senator Helms a happy birthday this month. I know it will be a happy occasion. We are glad to have you back in this body, Jesse, for these last few months, and we are also particularly pleased with your recovery. Senator Helms will be known to many of us--certainly this Senator from Nebraska--forever as ``Mr. Chairman.'' Mr. Chairman, I salute you and thank you for your service and your many courtesies and kindnesses. You are an inspiration to me.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of our greatest American Presidents and one of the most important world leaders of the 20th century, the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. One year ago, Kyung Hee University in Korea awarded President Reagan the Great World Peace Award for his commitment to world peace. President Reagan was a steadfast and true friend of South Korea. Former Secretary of State George Shultz wrote that ``To Ronald Reagan, South Korea was a stalwart ally and a valiant symbol of resistance to communism.'' The Soviet downing of the Korean Airlines flight 007 in September 1983, and the terrorist bombing the next month that killed 16 South Koreans, including Foreign Minister Lee Bum Suk and 3 Cabinet ministers, only reinforced President Reagan's determination to visit the Republic of Korea that November. President Reagan addressed the Korean National Assembly on November 12, 1983, and said to the people of South Korea: ``In these days of turmoil and testing, the American people are very thankful for such a constant and devoted ally. Today, America is grateful. to you.'' President Reagan and his administration stood by South Korea during a volatile and historic period, including the North Korean terrorist bombing of Korean Airlines flight 858 in November 1987, which killed 115 South Korean citizens; the first peaceful transfer of power from President Chun Doo Hwan to President Roh Tae Woo in February 1988; and the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. As we see both opportunity and risk on the Korean Peninsula, including the recent ground breaking visit of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to Pyongyang, the commitment of President Reagan and the United States to peace through strength on the Korean peninsula and throughout Asia and the world remains strong. Mr. President, I ask that the statement of Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, who last year accepted the Great World Peace Award on behalf of President Reagan, be printed in the Record. The statement follows. Remarks by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed on the Occasion of the Awarding to President Ronald W. Reagan the Great World Peace Award, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, September 27, 2001 america ``One flag, one land, one heart, one hand, one Nation, evermore.'' --Oliver Wendell Holmes Chancellor Young Seek Choue, Distinguished Friends: It is a signal honor for me to be in Seoul, the noble nation of the Republic of Korea to represent President Ronald W. Reagan and to accept on the President's behalf the Great World Peace Award from Keyung Hee University. I have the highest regard for Chancellor Choue. I stand with great respect for the Chancellor's extraordinary achievements in the world of education and in his untiring quest to seek peace on our troubled planet. As the godfather of the International Day of Peace his legacy is assured by leaders around the globe. As a spirited leader in education in this great country of Korea his fame and presence in modern day Korean history is already set in granite. I salute the Chancellor. President Reagan is a most deserving leader to receive this Award. The President's close friend and colleague Charles Z. Wick, who was a senior official in both Reagan Administrations, was to have journeyed to Seoul to accept the Award. The Day of Terror precluded that. I stand humbly before you to accept the Award for the President. Having served in President Reagan's two Administrations--first as envoy to the Kingdom of Morocco and then as envoy to the United Nations, I appreciate and applaud what the President did in searching for peace--the President's vision brought stability to the globe. President Reagan defined and symbolized Peace--peace among mankind. I stand before you as an American. the war against THE TERRORIST September 11.--I was on my way to the United Nations to participate in the opening of the General Assembly on the very day when we should have been celebrating the International Day of Peace at the Parliament of Man. 8:48 a.m.--And the world as we knew it changed forever in a millisecond. The Day of Terror and the aftermath was, is and continues to be a shock for the world. Americans and friends around the globe are reeling from the attack on America's sovereignty. As a diplomat working for you at your United Nations I have a perspective on the catastrophe. I am going to place my citizen of the United States hat on with these few observations--observations that I sincerely regret to make on an occasion when we should all be in celebration of Peace. This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. In spite of what the media is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. It was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America. These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated ``the moral is the physical as three is to one.'' Our enemies are willing-- better said, anxious--to give their lives for their cause. In addition to the demonstration of great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare namely: simplicity, security and surprise. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, and a good portion of it may happen right in the United States. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them. In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only ``superpower'', we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent ``counter-terrorist'' organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional ``body snatch,'' (Which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemies are ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries. They are likely living the lives of everyday citizens as ``next door.'' Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who grew up with, and were promoted because they excelled in--``The Cold War--doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear ``centers of gravity'' to strike with high technology weapons. America's vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft--this will be ``a knife fight'', it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or ``smart bombs'''. Unlike Americans, who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to flight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. The Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, says that there is a ``remarkable trinity of war'' that is composed of (1) the will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle--in that order. Every American citizen, not just those who were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon, was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack. The will of the American people will decide this war. If America is to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail. New York's remarkable response to the catastrophic attack at the World Trade Center has been well documented. Above the tragic din, at the very highest level of government, have come the essential voices of sanity. In closing, may I say that after all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. With the obscene toll of those lost climbing above 6,000, it is hard to speak without rage. In Korea and on this Peninsula you have known all too well the ravages of war and occupation. It is therefore why I have taken you time today to share my observations on the world we live in and what we may have to expect. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. As an American and a friend of the Republic of Korea I can say frankly that I believe America will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be the age of terror. This will be the age of liberty in America and across the world. I know you will join me in extending our deepest sympathies to the thousands affected by the tragic events of September 11. It was a Day of Terror and the aftermath has been of unspeakable pain. Our hearts and prayers extend to all--the victims, their families and all those who hold America so dear. Chancellor Choue--on behalf of President Ronald W. Reagan I extend great thanks to you for offering the President this Award. With humbleness, with honor and with great pride, I accept on behalf of President Ronald Reagan, this most distinguished Award--The Great World Peace Award. Chancellor Choue, ladies and gentleman, keep faith in America--the outcome of the battle is certain. God Bless America! Thank you! Happy Chusok.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to honor South Carolina's senior Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond will turn 100 on December 5. Only 126 years before Senator Thurmond's birth, the United States of America gained its independence; 37 years before Senator Thurmond was born, the Civil War ended; and when he was a year old, Wright brothers engineered the first flight from Kitty Hawk. Senator Thurmond made a commitment at an early age to serve the interests and needs of our Nation. His life is full of our country's history, and he has made our country his life. Since his days as a school teacher and athletic coach in the early 1920's Senator Thurmond has continued to be a leader and serve the interests of our country well above his own. Senator Thurmond served on active duty with the U.S. Army in World War II. He was a judge at that time, so he was exempt from military service. But Senator Thurmond volunteered, and as a 41-year-old Lt. Colonel, dropped behind enemy lines on D-Day in Normandy with the 82nd Airborne Division. During his 36 years of distinguished military service in the Active and Reserve Army, he was awarded five Battle Stars and 15 decorations, medals and other awards. Senator Thurmond carried his military experience to the Senate and quickly became a respected leader advocating a strong national defense for America. As a major general in the U.S. Army Reserve and a WWII combat vet, his contributions to the Armed Service Committee since 1959 have provided a strong voice on the needs of our service men and women and a first-hand perspective on the realities of war. Senator Thurmond has also used his experience in law and in the military through his long-standing leadership on the Veterans Affairs and Judiciary Committees. Senator Thurmond will be missed in the Senate as a friend, a leader, a colleague and for his tremendous contributions to our Nation. He is history in motion. Senator Thurmond was born during the Presidency of another fearless leader, Theodore Roosevelt. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``We have got but one life here. It pays, no matter what comes after it, to try and do things, to accomplish things in this life and not merely to have a soft and pleasant time.'' Senator Thurmond's life is an accomplishment of great leadership and selflessness. We are all grateful for his service to our country and I am proud to have served with him.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement on Iraq that I gave before the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act is similar to H.R. 3994, sponsored by the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Hyde. The House of Representatives passed this bill on May 16 by a vote of 390-22. The Afghan Freedom Support Act comments the United States to the democratic and economic development of Afghanistan. In addition to the economic and political assistance found in Title I of the legislation, Title II seeks to enhance the stability and security of Afghanistan and the region by authorizing military assistance to the Afghan government and to certain other countries in the region, including assistance for counter narcotics, crime control and police training. The United States must stay actively engaged in helping Afghanistan through a very dangerous and difficult transition to stability, security, and, ultimately, democratic government. We are at the beginning of a long process. We cannot be distracted or deterred from this objective. Our credibility, our word, and our security are directly linked to success in Afghanistan. And there cannot be political stability and economic development in Afghanistan without security. This legislation authorizes $2.5 billion over 4 years for economic and democratic development assistance for Afghanistan. This amount includes Senator Lugar's proposal for a $500 million enterprise fund to promote job creation and private sector development. In addition, S. 2712 authorizes up to $300 million in drawdown authority for military and other security assistance. This legislation includes a Sense of the Congress resolution, at the initiative of Senator Biden, which urges the President to commit the full weight of the United States to expand the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) beyond Kabul. The resolution calls for $1 billion to support ISAF expansion for FY 2003 and FY 2004, if the President makes that call. The main elements of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act are as follows: It authorizes continued efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees in neighboring countries; It also authorizes resources to help the Afghan government fight the production and flow of illicit narcotics; It assists efforts to achieve a broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender- sensitive, and fully representative government in Afghanistan; It supports strengthening the capabilities of the Afghan Government to develop projects and programs that meet the needs of the Afghan people; It supports the reconstruction of Afghanistan through creating jobs, clearing landmines, and rebuilding the agriculture sector, the health care system, and the educational system of Afghanistan; and It provides resources to the Ministry for Women's Affairs of Afghanistan to carry out its responsibilities for legal advocacy, education, vocational training, and women's health programs. This legislation also strongly urges the President to designate within the State Department an ambassadorial-level coordinator to oversee and implement these programs and to advance United States interests in Afghanistan, including coordination with other countries and international organizations with respect to assistance to Afghanistan. In general, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act provides a constructive, strategic framework for our Afghan policy, and flexible authority for the President to implement it. Let me add that this legislation is explicitly and strongly committed to increasing the participation of women in Afghan politics. One of the ``principles of assistance'' of this bill states that ``Assistance should increase the participation of women at the national, regional, and local levels in Afghanistan, wherever feasible, by enhancing the role of women in decision-making processes, as well as by providing support for programs that aim to expand economic and educational opportunities and health programs for women and educational and health programs for girls.'' We must not allow the Afghan government of President Karzai to unwind. The United States must make the necessary investment of resources to help stabilize and secure Afghanistan in order to support a democratic transition there. This bill addresses an urgent need. It is critical to America's security interest in Afghanistan and Central Asia. If Afghanistan goes backward, this will be a defeat for our war on terrorism, for the people desiring freedom in Afghanistan and in Central Asia, and for America symbolically in the world. This defeat would undermine the confidence in America's word around the world. Afghanistan is the first battle in our war on terrorism. We must not fail.