Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, could the Chair tell me how much time this side has remaining?

Mr. HAGEL. I yield to the Senator from Kansas 10 minutes off our time, Mr. President.

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. This legislation is similar to H.R. 3994, sponsored by the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Hyde. This bill was passed in the House of Representatives on May 16 by a vote of 390 to 22. The Afghan Freedom Support Act commits the United States to the democratic and economic development of Afghanistan. In addition to the economic and political assistance found in title I of this legislation, title II seeks to enhance the stability and security of Afghanistan in the region by authorizing military assistance to the Afghan Government and to certain other countries in the region, including assistance for counternarcotics, crime control, and police training. The United States must stay closely and actively engaged in helping Afghanistan through a very dangerous and difficult transition to stability, security, and, ultimately, to a 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. My legislation, and the companion legislation passed by the House, would authorize $1.15 billion over 4 years for economic and democratic development assistance for Afghanistan, as well as up to $300 million in drawdown authority for military and other security assistance. The main elements of my legislation are as follows: It authorizes continued efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees in neighboring countries; it 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 specific 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. We must not allow this fragile interim Afghan government to unwind. We must put forward the appropriate investment of men, effort, and resources to complete the objective of a democratic government in Afghanistan. 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, for America, symbolically, in this region, and for the world. It would be disastrous for our country because it would crack the confidence that people all over the world have in the United States. Afghanistan is the first battle in our war on terrorism. We must not fail. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, this week I introduced the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, S. 2712. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, the former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent his name be added to this bill as an original cosponsor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about the severe drought gripping much of our Nation. The situation is developing into a national problem, a big problem that can no longer be ignored. Last week in Nebraska, I met with farmers and livestock producers who have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by this drought. For many agricultural producers in Nebraska and throughout America, hope is again for this growing season. Their crops are wilted and their pastures are scorched and bare. These producers need assistance. For them, there are no options left. Drought is not just a Nebraska problem; it is a national problem. According to the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska, about 15 percent of the country experiences drought in a typical year. Today, more than 40 percent of the entire country is suffering from drought. The West is bone dry. ``Exceptional'' and ``extreme'' drought, as it is termed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has ravaged the Southwest as well as Wyoming, Montana, and parts of Texas. The Southern States, along with sections of New England, such as represented by the distinguished Presiding Officer, and the Mid-Atlantic States are also reeling from drought. This past spring was the driest in 107 years of data reporting in Colorado and the second driest in Arizona and southern California. Keep in mind, it is only July 9. To add to this problem, the drought has brought swarms of grasshoppers which are now infecting many parts of Nebraska as well as the entire Midwest. The economic effects of drought are often hard to measure. Unlike a hurricane or tornado, droughts area measured in years, sometimes decades. The worst drought in recent memory, in the summer of 1988, covered almost 40 percent of the entire United States. It cost an estimated $40 billion. Compare that to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which cost about $30 billion. The bad news is the current drought could be much worse than the drought of 1988, considering we still must endure July and August, the hottest months of the year. Already, Nebraska is estimating at least $307 million damage to its economy, with the loss to crops and pastureland alone estimated at $150 million. Again, this is only a midyear estimate. Government action is now necessary. Congress is quick to respond to floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Now we must respond to this national drought. Some of my colleagues may second-guess the need for additional agricultural assistance. After all, Congress, for the past 3 years, has provided billions of dollars for supplemental agricultural spending, mostly due to low commodity prices. Emergency payments were supposed to cease with passage of the new farm bill this year. Clearly, the new farm bill, which will spend an estimated $180 billion or more over the next 10 years, provides almost no safety net for farmers and ranchers hurt by drought. That is one of the farm bill's biggest faults, as Senators Roberts and Lugar pointed out often during the farm bill debate on the floor of the Senate. Increased price supports could not help much when there is no crop to be harvested. During the Senate farm bill debate, Senator Lugar brought up the idea of expanded crop and livestock revenue insurance. Senator Roberts called for more emphasis on direct, decoupled, nonproduction-related payments. Both are solid, sound ideas, but Congress did not listen. Now we must play with the cards we have dealt ourselves. It is important we do not hold drought-plagued agricultural producers hostage to a shortsighted farm bill. The President said any new agricultural disaster aid must come from the $73.5 billion in new agricultural funding. I agree with the President. We should find the necessary offsets for this new funding. But we must act quickly to find the necessary disaster aid to help minimize the drought's impact on local economies. America will see a ripple effect on these economies. The economies of many States are directly tied to agriculture and food production. We are not limited to just an agricultural disaster package. There are other ways in which Washington is helping our agricultural producers this year. Secretary Veneman has been making disaster declarations for counties across the country, which allows eligible agriculture producers to receive emergency low-interest loans. She has approved grazing and haying on Conservation Reserve Program acres throughout the country, including almost 40 Nebraska counties. Also, I would like to remind my colleagues of an important bill recently introduced by the senior Senator from New Mexico. Senator Domenici's National Drought Preparedness Act S. 2528 would move us away from the costly, ad-hoc, response-oriented approach to droughts to a comprehensive, pro-active national drought policy. We need an established program that will allow local, State, and Federal Governments to work together--to coordinate a drought preparedness strategy. Droughts do not happen overnight, and the damage they cause to the economy and environment do not go away with one measurable rainfall. Government cannot bring an end to the drought or bring pastures and crops back to life. But we can help our agriculture producers survive, weather this crisis, and prepare for the next growing season. With many of my colleagues in the House and Senate, I am working on an emergency drought disaster package to bring before the Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to help find a responsible way to get America's agriculture producers the help they need--as soon as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, today I rise to submit a resolution recognizing the accomplishments of Ignacy Jan Paderewski as a musician, composer, statesman, and philanthropist and to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the return of his remains to Poland. Born in Poland in 1860, Paderewski is remembered for his contributions to the arts and humanities and as one of the great men of our times. Paderewski was a brilliant and popular pianist who performed hundreds of concerts in Europe and the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, donating the proceeds to numerous charitable causes. During WWI, Paderewski played a central role in achieving Poland's independence, becoming the first Premier of Poland in 1919 until 1922 when he left politics and returned to music. The German invasion of Poland in 1939 spurred Paderewski to return to politics where he fought against the Nazi dictatorship in World War II. By joining the exiled Polish Government he helped to mobilize the Polish forces and to urge the United States to join the Allied Forces. Paderewski died in 1941. At the direction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Paderewski's remains were placed alongside America's honored dead in Arlington National Cemetery, where President Roosevelt said he may lie until Poland is free. For over a half century, the remains of Paderewski were interred at Arlington National Cemetery. He did not live to see the U.S. and Allied Forces liberate Europe from the tyranny of Nazi control. Nor did he witness the subjugation of Poland during the Soviet era. It was, however, the legacy of Paderewski that inspired movements throughout Europe, including Solidarity in Poland, which led to the liberation of Europe. In 1992, Solidarity Leader Lech Walesa, the first democratically elected President of Poland following WWII, asked U.S. President George H.W. Bush to return Paderewski's remains to his native homeland. On July 5, 1992, Paderewski's remains were interred in a crypt at the St. John Cathedral in Warsaw Poland. So, as we near the 10th anniversary of this historic event, I submit this resolution and asked that it be properly referred.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the need to move forward with a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. Doing so is in the best interest of America's national security, economy, energy policy, public safety, and environment. Special interest groups and activists have capitalized on this issue--using scare tactics and doomsday scenarios to alarm the public. But as a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I have listened to both sides, reviewed the information presented by the experts, and attended the hearings. It makes sense to store our Nation's high-level nuclear waste in a single, scientifically and environmentally sound, secure, and remote location. Twenty years have passed since Congress called for the creation of an underground repository for the Nation's spent nuclear fuel--under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Senator Murkowski has referred to the history of that act. During that time, about $7 billion from U.S. electric consumers have been invested in finding the most suitable location for this project. More than 45,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is currently stored at 131 sites in 39 States--including my State of Nebraska, with 650 metric tons of waste stored at its two nuclear power plants. This nuclear waste is stored above ground in facilities built for temporary storage only. Many of these storage sites are near major cities and waterways. Yucca Mountain represents two decades of the most comprehensive environmental and technical assessments ever conducted anywhere on the planet. The mountain is located in one of the most isolated and arid locations in the United States. Only 30 miles to the west lies Death Valley; to the north is the Department of Energy's nuclear test site where some 900 nuclear weapons have been tested. The repository itself would be located about 1,000 feet underground in sold rock to keep its contents safe from significant impacts, including major earthquakes. The mountain's natural geological attributes would be reinforced with man-made barriers. Some opponents of the repository have centered this debate on the transportation issue. They point out that there are risks involved. Of course there are risks involved--we do not live in a risk-free society. There is risk with everything we do. What is important is that the risk is acceptable in order to accomplish the objective. In this case, the risk is absolutely acceptable--because it is a risk we can control, we can manage, we can deal with. Shipments of nuclear material have been taking place in the United States for the past three decades and will continue, with or without Yucca Mountain. About 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have occurred since 1965--covering 1.7 million miles--with no injuries, no fatalities, and no environmental damage due to radioactive release. In that time, not one spent fuel container has ever been breached. Spent nuclear fuel, which is nonexplosive and nonflammable, is shipped in specially designed and tested multilayered steel casks. These casks have been designed to withstand extreme heat, prolonged submersion in water, and severe impacts--such as being broadsided by a 120-ton locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour. If the Yucca Mountain repository becomes a reality, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must survey and approve all routes, and all shipments would be monitored 24 hours a day through a satellite tracking system--with the coordinated effort of local, State, and federal law enforcement agencies. A ``no'' vote on Yucca would be devastating for the future of nuclear power in this country. While that is the objective of the activists, we cannot afford such a catastrophic loss. Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of the Nation's electric power. It powers 40 percent of our Navy's combat vessels. Experts in the fuel cell industry say that nuclear power plants are the only way to produce enough hydrogen if America is to ever become a country powered by fuel cells, instead of fossil fuels. This is all directly connected to Yucca Mountain. We should not forget that there will be a large financial burden if this project is rejected. The Federal Government will be in default of its obligations, and would owe utilities and contract holders as much as $100 billion. This is on top of the billions of dollars already invested in the project. Then we would be forced to begin a new process of looking at other options for a repository. If not Yucca, where? Hanford, WA, is often mentioned as a viable alternative. The fact is, or we must deal with, 45,000 metric tons of nuclear waste--and more on the way. The bottom line is that this problem is not going to disappear, and the world will not become any safer by deferring this problem. We either deal with this problem today--or we pass it onto future generations. That is not an acceptable option. We do have an acceptable, safe and responsible option. We must move forward with the Yucca Mountain repository. It is the right and responsible thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Nevada. I rise today in support of the Warner amendment, an amendment that will restore the $814 million cut from the President's request for missile defense funding. Last December, President Bush made the decision to withdraw the United States from the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, the ABM Treaty. That treaty went out of existence on June 13. The United States is no longer constrained by cold-war-era treaty requirements. I supported President Bush's actions to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty, which I believe demonstrates his commitment to America's defense. The ABM Treaty was an important treaty. It defined the strategic policy of our Nation and defined the strategic nuclear policy of an era because at that time in 1972, the ABM Treaty was signed by two countries: the Soviet Union and the United States, the only two countries that had the capacity to launch all out nuclear war. The world has changed--the world is dynamic--since the ABM Treaty was signed, and the policy of mutually assured destruction that formed the cornerstone of our nuclear deterrent policy is gone. Now, as September 11 has made brutally clear, we face varied threats from terrorists, individuals, nations, organizations, and those that support them. These threats, these challenges come in many forms. Currently, 12 nations have nuclear weapons programs; 28 nations have ballistic missiles; 13 nations have biological weapons; and 16 nations have chemical weapons. These new realities mean we must place a greater emphasis on defense--all forms of defense. Unfortunately, the defense authorization bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee takes a step backwards with regard to missile defense. The $814 million cut will have a profound effect on U.S. efforts to continue research and important development and eventually deploy an effective missile defense system. In addition to the proposed cuts in research and testing, nearly 70 percent of the Missile Defense Agency's civilian jobs and related costs could be eliminated if the current legislation we are debating is enacted. These cuts would severely hamper the Missile Defense Agency's ability to conduct day-to-day business. That means tests. That means research. That means development. That means a better understanding of the integration of these new defense capabilities into our overall national security system. This is very important. It isn't one test. It is not one program. It is not one system. It is an integration of all these strategic balances that now become the dynamic of our national security system: Offensive weapons, now defensive capabilities to guard against not just ballistic missiles but tactical missiles, nuclear, biological, weapons that can be delivered and delivered anywhere in this country. We seek a broad array of research, development, and testing activities to yield a system as soon as feasible, not any system but a relevant, realistic system that in fact has the capability to defend this country and our allies. This is not one monolithic umbrella over just this country. Our deployed forces overseas, large groupings of our deployed forces all over the globe, must be protected. Our friends and allies rely on the United States. This is a large, profound, critically important project. It cannot be accomplished, defined in a year or 2 years. But in the interest of our country and its future security, it is quite clear that we need a national missile defense system. The Armed Services Committee's actions in the bill they reported out of committee would hamper this objective. If the current Senate version of the missile defense budget were to stand, Secretary Rumsfeld would recommend that the President veto this legislation. It is important to note how missile defense interconnects with our broader security and strategic policies. In February, I visited the U.S. Strategic Command in Bellevue, NB, the headquarters of our military nuclear strategy. At 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, Secretary Rumsfeld will announce that Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska will become the new headquarters for a merged SPACECOM and STRATCOM facility with new responsibilities to face the new challenges and threats of our day. Missile defense will be part of that new merged command and will bring Space Command and Strategic Command together. When I was at Offutt Air Force Base earlier this year, I was briefed on how defense policy was moving beyond the cold war nuclear triad of missiles, bombers, and submarines. One leg of the new triad would consist of our old nuclear capability, but it would be supplemented with both conventional military superiority and an effective missile defense system--integrating the systems. In forging this new triad, the United States could significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal, while at the same time protecting our country, our troops abroad, and our allies from limited missile threats and possible missile blackmail from rogue regimes, terrorists, and other nations. Today's New York Times ran a story discussing a course that this transformation could take. It described a possible new Unified Combatant Command that could ``combine the military network that warns of missile attacks with its force that can fire nuclear and nonnuclear weapons at suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons sites around the world.'' We are in the process of making this new strategic framework a reality. It is our highest responsibility--the security of this Nation, the security of our men and women around the world, whose only objective is the security of this Nation. We have a responsibility to our allies. We must recognize that the threats facing our Nation are changing, and we must restructure, reorganize, and adapt to these new dangerous threats. Missile defense will play a significant role in protecting our country, our allies, and our deployed forces. I might say, isn't it interesting that under President Putin, the Russians are working closely with our defense establishment to work through these new mutually beneficial strategies and finding ways to cooperate in both of our interests. The threats to the United States are not unique to the United States. These threats are threats to Russia and to nations all over the world. A missile defense system for the United States and our allies is not mutually exclusive from the interests and benefits of Russia. With President Bush's recent trip to Russia, that was formalized in two very important documents that were signed by Presidents Bush and Putin. So it is not a matter of a unilateral course of action for the United States to pursue missile defense. It is in the interest across the globe of all peoples who wish to make the world safer, more secure, more prosperous, more peaceful. And why is that? It is as much about defining opportunities and hope for the world as any one part of this equation or this debate. What we are facing in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Asia cannot be disconnected from this total development of policy that makes the world safer and more secure and more stable for the benefit of all people. These are factors that are not often pointed out in this debate about missile defense. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to take a close look at Senator Warner's amendment to put this funding into this Defense authorization bill--maybe as important a Defense authorization bill as we have seen in this country in many years. I hope my colleagues will read through what the amendment does. It is very simple: putting the money back in. I want my colleagues to take it the next few steps and ask themselves the consequences for slowing down missile defense development in this country. We, too often, get disconnected from the objective of the debate in Congress because we get snagged in the underbrush of the nuance, or the amendment at the time, or the argument at the time, or the newspaper headline tomorrow, or defending an amendment to an amendment; and we lose sight of the horizon, where do we go, why, and what is the point, and what is the bigger picture, the wider lens that is required? This is such an amendment. This is a wider lens amendment. I hope Senator Warner, when he introduces his amendment, will get a vote on that amendment. I hope this Senate will come forward with the votes to support Senator Warner's amendment because it is not just about how much damage we would do to the security interests of this country; it is about more than just that strategic and military dynamic. It is about the future course of our foreign policy, the enhancement of our relationships, and the ability to help bring peace and stability and prosperity to the world. This is what we debate. Defense is not just defense. Defense is about allowing a nation not just to defend itself but to prosper and reach out to help other nations and make the world safer. That is the big picture. That is what we pray for--not the amendment. So, again, I urge my colleagues to take some time to understand what this is about and the consequences of their vote. I am a cosponsor of Senator Warner's amendment. I have believed for some time that it is a responsible and relevant approach as part of our larger framework of interests and, certainly, strategic defense policy for our future. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of urgent concern for American foreign policy: the situation in the Middle East and its implications for our war on terrorism. Yesterday the majority leader offered three principles to guide our policy in the Middle East. I share his concern about the gravity of the situation we face and his affirmation of American support for Israel, and the imperative of American leadership in helping bring about a lasting peace in the region. Time is not on our side. In April, I spoke before this body in support of President Bush's leadership in bringing a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. I applaud the President and his team for their progress so far in assembling the pieces of a potentially historic agreement and coalition for peace. But we are still only at the beginning of a long and difficult process. What happens in the Middle East cannot be separated from our interests in the war on terrorism. If we fail in peace-making between Israel and her neighbors, there will be grave consequences for the United States, Israel, and the world. We will further empower the terrorists and extremists, those who thrive, find refuge, and recruit in conditions of poverty, violence, and despair. We must help secure a vision of hope for the people of the Middle East in order to reclaim the peace initiative. It is time to put the endgame up front in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians must have a state, with contiguous and secure borders, and Israel must have a state without terrorism and with secure borders. President Bush endorsed the concept of a Palestinian state in a historic speech to the United Nations last year. If we do not address this, the core political issue of this conflict, we will allow the extremists on both sides to win. And then we will all lose: Palestinians, Israelis, Arabs, Americans, the world. Strong, engaged, steady, and visionary American leadership is a predicate for the future of the Middle East. The Arab League peace proposal, at the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, calls for normal relations between Israel and the Arab world and presents a unique and historic opportunity for peace. The Bush administration may be considering recognizing a transitional or provisional Palestinian state, with the specific details to be worked out over time, an idea similar to the Peres-Abu Ala agreement of last year. The so-called ``Quartet''--US, Russia, the EU, and the UN-- provides an international context for this possibility and a revived diplomatic track. The pieces may be in place, the image of an idea for peace forming on the horizon, although the work ahead will be difficult. There are no easy answers or risk-free options. We can no longer defer the tough decisions on Israeli settlements, Palestinian refugees, borders, and the status of Jerusalem. The time for a step-by-step sequential process has come and gone. We are close to reaching a line of demarcation, where only bold and courageous leadership on all sides can show the way to a resolution. Israel must make some hard choices for peace. It knows that military means alone will not end terrorism. Settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza must end. Israel should withdraw its military from the Palestinian towns it has re-occupied, as soon as the security situation allows. The emphasis for Israel must be on developing a coalition of common interests including our Arab allies and the United States to form the core of a peace coalition. Israel should move closer to this coalition and away from isolation and reliance on only the military option to ending the crisis. The Israeli people have suffered too much and too long from terrorism. It must end. America will continue to stand by our friend and do what we must to help secure a peace and Israel's survival. But America's support of Israel should not be at the expense or exclusion of our relationships with our Arab friends and the Palestinian people. It need not be. America is against terrorists, America is not against Arabs or Palestinians. We are and can be a friend and supporter of all sides. We must be, or there will be no hope and no peace. This also means that we will not retreat from our support of democratic principles, values, and expectations. We will not trade friendship and freedom for expediency and peace. The other Arab leaders of the region must play a major role in this revived peace process. They have serious responsibilities and significant self-interests in helping end terrorism and resolving this conflict. There is no longer room for ambiguity or criticism from the sidelines. Abdication of responsibility or subtlety is no longer an option. Crown Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Mubarak of Egypt and other Arab leaders clearly understand the high stakes and are willing to take risks for peace. The prospects for getting a peace process back on track is best served when the risks are shared. The Palestinian leadership must respond to the challenge and opportunity before it. Terrorism does an injustice to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. A Palestinian state cannot be born from and committed to terrorism and hostility toward its neighbor. It is a tragedy that the Palestinian people have been linked in the minds of many people--many Americans, to the methods of terrorists and extremists who represent only darkness and hatred, not the aspirations of most Palestinians for statehood and a life of hope and peace. Real reform and change within the Palestinian Authority has become a condition of any peace agreement. This must happen--and happen now. The present Palestinian government must stand up and show a leadership that has been lacking for too long. The current Palestinian leaders must be accountable and take responsibility for the future of the Palestinian people. Terrorism and violence are not the means to statehood and legitimacy. American and Israeli pressure and intervention, however, can not be the final determinants of a new Palestinian leadership. An alternative Palestinian leadership, as Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told me a couple of months ago, may be either too weak to make peace or too radical to even consider it. This will certainly be the case if alternative leadership is perceived as primarily the result of American or Israeli collaboration. There are those in the Palestinian movement that have been speaking out for democracy and against corruption in the Palestinian Authority for some time. Hanan Ashrawi and Mustafa Barghouti, as well as many others, have been taking risks for democracy for Palestinians and transparency in Palestinian governance long before it became a condition for a renewed peace process. Leaders of the Arab world must take more responsibility for Palestinian leadership. They cannot look away. It is now far too dangerous for them to allow further drift in the Middle East. In considering the difficult road ahead, I understand the political constraints and risks that Israel and our Arab friends face in moving forward with peace. But it is better to share the risk than leave the field to the terrorists and extremists who will fill the leadership vacuum. The problems in the Middle East affect and influence all aspects of our foreign policy, including our leadership in the war on terrorism. The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be separated from America's foreign policy. Actions in the Middle East have immense consequences for our other policies and interests in the world. We are limited in dealing with other conflicts until this conflict is on a path to resolution. America's policy and role in the Middle East, and the perception of our policies and role across the globe, affects our policies and interests in Afghanistan, South Asia, Indonesia, and all parts of the world. We cannot defeat terrorism without the active support of our friends and allies around the world. This will require an enhancement of our relationships, not an enhancement of our power. It will require America's reaching out to other nations. It will require a wider lens in our foreign policy with a new emphasis on humanitarian, economic, and trade issues as well as military and intelligence relationships. We need the active support and involvement of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the other states of the Middle East to defeat terrorism. The potential for isolating them on one side, with the United States and Israel on the other, is the wrong path. The alternative to developing coalitions of common interest in the Middle East and our war on terrorism is a region afire with radicalism and rage directed at Israel and the United States. We cannot wait. We cannot defer the peace timetable to the perfect time for peace. There is no perfect time for peace or perfect set of dynamics for peace. It will happen because we make it happen. We must seize the time we have, with all its imperfections. The perception of American power becomes the reality of American power. If we fail in our diplomatic efforts to help bring peace to Israel and her neighbors, and isolate ourselves and Israel in the process, our security and Israel's security will become more vulnerable and the world more dangerous. We need to keep our eye on the objectives: peace between Israel and its neighbors and victory in our war on terrorism. I close by joining my colleague, the majority leader, in encouraging President Bush not to risk unraveling the progress we have made so far in the Middle East by allowing a period of inattention and inaction to drag us all back into a dark abyss of despair and danger. A conference or some tangible relevant framework for peace must be announced and organized soon. The stakes have rarely been so high, the opportunities so great, and the margins for error so small.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I would need no more than 15 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to wish the United States Army happy birthday. It was 227 years ago today, in 1775, that the Continental Army of the United States was formed. The United States Army has had a monumental impact on our country. Millions of men and women over the past 227 years have served in the senior branch of our military forces. The Army is interwoven into the culture of America. Those who have had the great privilege of serving our country in the U.S. Army understand that. This year is an especially important anniversary. The United States Military Academy at West Point this year celebrated their bicentennial anniversary. The newly commissioned class of Lieutenants from the West Point Class of 2002 will face a future much like those faced by their predecessors in the Class of 1942, a world where the United States finds itself in a struggle to protect our precious values of liberty, freedom, and democracy. This struggle will not be easy. As of today, we have soldiers stationed or deployed in 125 nations. Today we are at war with the scourge of our time, terrorism. We must go at the root and strike at the heart of terrorist organizations and those nations granting them safe harbor. And to do so we depend on our United States Army. This mission is not easy. Our soldiers will spend holidays in far away countries, miss anniversaries with their spouses and birthdays with their children. They do this out of love for our nation and a sense of the greater good. But we must remember that these are the lucky ones. Since military operations started in Afghanistan, the following Army soldiers have given their lives in service to our great nation during Operation Enduring Freedom: Pfc. Kristofer Stonesifer; Spc. John J. Edmunds; Pvt. Giovany Maria; Staff Sgt. Brian ``Cody'' Prosser; Master Sgt. Jefferson Donald Davis; Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Petithory; Sgt. 1st Class Nathan R. Chapman; Spc. Jason A. Disney; Spc. Thomas F. Allison; Staff Sgt. James P. Dorrity; Chief Warrant Officer Jody L. Egnor; Sgt. Jeremy D. Forshee; Staff Sgt. Kerry W. Frith; Major Curtis D. Feisner; Captain Bartt D. Owens; Staff Sgt. Bruce A. Rushforth, Jr.; Sgt. Bradley S. Crose; Spc. Marc A. Anderson; Pfc. Matthew A. Commons; Sgt. Philip J. Svitak; Chief Warrant Officer Stanley L. Harriman; Staff Sgt. Brian T. Craig; Staff Sgt. Justin J. Galewski; Sgt. Jamie O. Maugans; Sgt. 1st Class Daniel A. Romero; Sgt. Gene Vance, Jr.; and Sgt. 1st Class Peter P. Tycz II. ``Duty, honor, country'' is the motto of the U.S. Army. It is America. Every generation of Americans who have served in the U.S. Army, from the Continental Army to today's fighting men and women, have been shaped by this motto. It has molded lives in ways that are hard to explain, just as the Army has touched our national life and history and made the world more secure, prosperous, and a better place for all mankind. On this 227th birthday of the U.S. Army, as a proud U.S. Army veteran, I say happy birthday to the Army veterans of our country. We recognize and thank those who served and whose examples inspired those of us who have had the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Army. It is the Army that has laid the foundation for all of this nation's distinguished branches of service and helped build a greater, stronger America. On this, the 227th birthday of the Army, I say Happy Birthday and, in the great rich tradition of the U.S. Army, I proclaim my annual Senate floor ``Hooah!''

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Seven minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Kerry amendment. Almost every American who has a pension plan has an interest in maintaining strong investment protections, the kind that we now have in the current trade promotion authority bill. Almost every pension plan carries company portfolios that invest overseas. If those investments lose value due to unfair, arbitrary, or discriminatory action by a foreign government, then the U.S. company deserves compensation. It is what the U.S. courts offer American companies invested in the United States. It is what U.S. courts offer foreign companies invested in the United States. The current TPA bill ensures that U.S. companies abroad are afforded the same fair and transparent arbitration procedures that are consistent with U.S. law, practice, and principles. The Kerry amendment puts into jeopardy this protection. U.S. companies that invest overseas make important contributions to the U.S. standard of living that, in many cases, are greater than those of purely domestic firms. These contributions help to increase U.S. productivity and include: research and development, exports, and investments in capital equipment. Since 1982, these companies have performed well over half of all U.S. research, and not only research but significant development as well. Since 1977, these companies have shipped over half to three-quarters of all U.S. exports. Their affiliates are important recipients of these exports and accounted for nearly half of these shipments in 1997. These companies undertake the majority of all U.S. investment in physical capital in the manufacturing sector; as much as 57 percent in that sector. More than 70 percent of the net income earned by overseas affiliates of American companies returns to the United States. It is a significant number. More than 70 percent of the net income earned by overseas affiliates of American companies returns to the United States. That means jobs, opportunity, and growth for this country--not overseas, not other markets, but this country. The well- being of these companies is important, obviously, to our economy. Investing abroad has similar risks that investing in the U.S. has. There is a chance that a local regulation may change the value of your property or your asset. No one wants to have their property expropriated but sometimes the Government determines a public policy need to do so. When that happens, U.S. law and these investment protection provisions in the TPA bill say that the company is entitled to at least compensation. The purpose of the investment protections is to afford the same protections to U.S. companies in foreign countries that foreign investors get in U.S. courts. Given the developing world's lack of sound judicial systems, there is a need for an investor-state dispute mechanism that is based on U.S. law, practice and legal principles. The investment provisions in the current TPA bill direct U.S. negotiators to obtain the following, clearly: protections for U.S. companies invested abroad against discrimination in expropriatory actions by foreign governments or for their unfair and inequitable treatment; transparent and open investor-state panels; mechanism to weed out frivolous claims and deter the filing of such claims; procedures for the efficient selection of arbitrators and the expeditious disposition of claims; enhanced public input into the development of government positions; a review mechanism to deal with potential aberrant decisions; protections on expropriation consistent with U.S. legal principles and practice; and protections on fair and equitable treatment consistent with U.S. legal principles and practice. The TPA bill contains mechanisms that address the legitimate criticisms we have heard over the past year about the investment provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement chapter 11 investment section. We have heard much about that in the debate this afternoon. As plainly and clearly as I can say it, there is no need for the Kerry amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kerry amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thanks, the thanks of the U.S. Senate, and the thanks of the American people, to a dedicated public servant, Ambassador Joe Limprecht. Ambassador Limprecht served as America's representative to Albania from 1999 until his death last week. At a challenging time in history, he was on the front lines of U.S. international outreach. He died while serving our Nation. Joe Limprecht brought a strong Nebraska common sense and perspective to the daunting challenges facing our Ambassador in Albania. Joe was a fifth-generation Nebraskan. His wife, Nancy is also a native-born Nebraskan. In 1964, Joe graduated from Omaha Westside High School. His wife also attended Westside, where she graduated in 1966. Joe then went on to get his undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago. He received a doctorate in history from Berkeley. During his Foreign Service Career, he also earned a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the Kennedy School at Harvard. Joe entered the Foreign Service in 1975, but his ties to Nebraska remained strong. He remained a member of the Nebraska Historical Society. I knew his father well. Hollis Limprecht was an institution in Omaha. He worked at the Omaha World Herald for 40 years. For 23 of those years he edited the paper's ``Midlands Magazine.'' Joe took an unusual path up through the ranks of the Foreign Service. From 1985 to 1988, he essentially served as West Berlin's Chief of Police under the Four Powers Agreement. His formal title was the Public Safety Advisor to the U.S. Mission in Berlin. In this role, Joe was involved in law enforcement, intelligence, and national security issues at a level rarely available to members of the Foreign Service. He followed this posting with another unusual assignment. From 1988 to 1991, Joe was the Counselor for Narcotics Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan. This job also required strong problem-solving capabilities and a certain toughness. In recent months, Americans have gained a much greater understanding for the challenges this post had to have presented. After 1991, Joe's career followed a more traditional route that emphasized his diplomatic and management skills. From 1993 to 1995 he served as Chief of Career Development and Training at the State Department. Prior to becoming Ambassador to Albania, he served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan. Joe Limprecht was the complete foreign service officer. He represented our nation on the front lines, in very difficult international territory. America owes him, and his family, a debt of gratitude for their selfless service. Joe leaves behind his wife Nancy, and two daughters, Alma Klein and Eleanor Limprecht. But he also leaves behind a record of service that stands as a model to young Americans. I am proud to say Joe Limprecht was a fellow Nebraskan, a friend, and an outstanding American.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of HR 3167, the Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act. I am a cosponsor of S. 1572, the Senate companion to this important bill. Today freedom and democracy flourish from the Balkans to the Black Sea. One cannot help but marvel at the transformation over the last decade in Central and Eastern Europe. These countries have moved from members of the Warsaw Pact to allies of the United States in military operations in Bosinia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. An issue that has united these nations during this time of historic transformation has been the commitment to democratic reforms and closer relations with the United States. NATO membership, the strongest link between Europe and the United States, has been a cornerstone of the foreign and security policy goals of each of the member countries. On May 19, 2000, the Foreign Ministers from nine NATO aspirant countries met in Vilnius, Lithuania to jointly reiterate their desire to firmly entrench their nations in the western community of democracies. Latvia, Lithuanaia, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria were at various stages of readiness for membership. But from that day forward, these nations have demonstrated that they could work together to pursue their individual goals for security. In May 2001, Croatia joined this group--now called the ``Vilnius 10.'' NATO has recognized their aspirations and has made clear its intention to extend invitations for membership at the Prague summit this November. Each candidate nation will be judged on its own merits and progress. And as the process of NATO enlargement moves forward, it is important to ensure that it does so in a way that enhances NATO and peace and stability in Europe. The standards for new members are most clearly stated in Article X of the Washington Treaty of 1949 the founding NATO document, which provides two major criteria for membership. First, a nation must be, ``in a position to futher the principles of this Treaty.'' In other words, a nation must have a strong and demonstrated commitment to democratic ideals. Second, the nation must be in a position ``to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.'' NATO is a military alliance, and new allies should strengthen, not weaken, transatlantic security. Economic stability is part of these two requirements for joining the alliance. Military reforms and military commitments cost money, these nations must be able to pay for the commitments they make to the alliance. And economic stability also means political stability, a theme that has underlined our current debate on trade policy. Each of the Vilnius nations will be examined on the criteria. I mentioned above. This leglslation does nothing to prejudge the decisions that will be made by the NATO member countries on which of the aspirant nations will be invited to join the alliance. This legislation unequivocally declares congressional and Presidential support for continued responsible enlargement of NATO. This legislation also provides financial assistance, in the form of foreign military financing, to NATO candidate countries as they conduct the reform and restructuring of their military forces to meet NATO requirements. We must be wise enough to seize this moment of dramatic and positive changes in Europe, building onto what has been accomplished during the first 50 years of NATO. NATO expansion will help consolidate the freedom the nations of Central and Eastern Europe have secured by including them in the world's most successful alliance, NATO. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the conference report accompanying the farm bill. When the current farm bill debate began more than two years ago, agriculture leaders and Members of Congress said a new approach and a new policy was needed to face the challenges of a new century. The farm bill we debate today is not a new approach, nor is it a new policy, but rather it is a step backward into an antique farm policy of more government command and control. This bill could have been a good farm bill had it incorporated some of the innovative ideas that had been put forward--farmers savings accounts; more focus on farmer income support through direct, decoupled payments; a more significant role for rural development; giving USDA the ability to review environmental and endangered species legislation; initiatives and safeguards to keep our farm program trade compliant with international trade laws; expanded crop insurance programs; and real payment limits. Instead, we have been presented with an election-year document whose glaring shortcomings far outweigh its virtues. This bill will continue to expand a policy that ensures commodity prices will drop lower and remain low, and that land prices and rents will continue to go up. As one farmer in Nebraska wrote me yesterday, ``This farm bill is the same old thing, and will do nothing to reverse the trend of fewer and fewer farmers on the land. The number of farmers in Nebraska under the age of 35 is fading fast. The status quo represented by this bill will not help, and we do not have a lot of time to change things.'' As another constituent of mine said, ``This bill will not help farmers--it will only help bushels, bales and pounds.'' It focuses on incentives for more production--whether the market wants it or not. There are positive provisions in this Report. It contains a modest energy title, which promotes renewable fuel. It substantially increases funding for conservation programs. And it does not contain programs that purchase local water rights with federal funds. But the negatives vastly outweigh the positives. Of the many problems with this farm bill, one of the most serious is the lack of real payment limits. Currently, two-thirds of all federal payments go to 10 percent of the recipients--the largest operators and landowners. These lopsided payments encourage and subsidize overproduction; drive up land prices, land values and rentals; and allow large farm operations to outbid and buy up smaller and mid-sized producers with taxpayer dollars. The payment limits in the Senate farm bill were completely gutted by the Conferees, despite having passed the Senate with 66 votes, and the House with 265 votes. Without real payment limits, this farm bill will not only widen the disparity gap between small and large farmers, it will make it much more difficult in the future to gain support from non-rural Members of Congress. Without real payment limits, we risk derailing public support for the entire farm program in the future. The farm bill should not be welfare for small farmers. But Government should not be financing the demise of the family farm. There is no justification for unlimited government payments. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the effects this farm bill will have on the cost of farmland. Unlimited government payments will only encourage large farm operations and wealthy, absentee landowners to buy more ground, no matter how low the commodity prices drop. The Omaha World Herald recently reported that Nebraska farmland values increased by 17 percent last year, despite 2001 being one of the worst years on record for crop prices. The USDA reports that nearly a quarter of current farmland value is due to government payments. Yet, in many cases, the people who actually farm the land do not benefit from higher land prices. Nearly half of U.S. farmers rent at least some of their farm ground. For these farmers, this bill means they will be faced with even higher cash rents. No farm bill is perfect. But this one has enough problems that we will be modifying it soon. One of the big question marks is this bill's timing. The new farm program will go into effect this growing season-- covering the 2002 crop. That means while farmers are in the fields tending to this year's crops, they will also have to worry about updating their yields and acres, and doing other necessary paperwork to be eligible for the new program's fixed payments, loan rates and counter-cyclical payments. This is bad timing and will create massive confusion for farmers. The Senate should have seriously considered Senator Roberts' emergency assistance bill, which would have provided farmers with a real and instant safety net this year. Under the new farm bill, it will take four checks and more than a year for producers to get what they would have received right away from a supplemental measure. Also, by relying heavily on increased loan rates and moving away from payments not tied to production--price support instead of income support, this farm bill does not provide much of a ``safety net'' for those farmers who fail to produce a crop. That is a very important detail considering the severe drought in many parts of the country-- including much of western Nebraska. They are calling this bill the ``Farm Security and Rural Investment Act.'' That is a bit misleading. Of the $73.5 billion in new farm bill spending over the next decade, only $870 million--about 1 percent will go to rural development. Compared to the Senate-passed farm bill, this farm bill cuts rural development in half. That means phasing-down or completely eliminating important programs--like value-added projects for farmers that would help restore competition in the marketplace; rural business grants; and high-speed Internet access for rural areas. This is a serious shortchanging of rural America, especially considering that even before the bill becomes law, it is estimated to run at least $9 billion over budget. Consider that in Nebraska, 61 of 93 counties have lost at least 10 percent of their population since 1980. Nationally, 556 rural counties have lost 10 percent or more of their residents. A sensible, relevant and visionary farm policy would provide a better balance between commodity support and rural investment than what is now in this bill. Soon after the Senate farm bill passed, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and I introduced the ``New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act.'' This legislation, quite simply, would attract individuals and businesses back to rural areas that have been devastated by the restructuring of agriculture. Our bill would encourage young people to live and work in rural areas suffering population loss. It would create real incentives for new home and business construction, while protecting the value of existing homes. This is the type of legislation that should be a key part of any agricultural policy aimed at improving the lives of those who feed our nation and the world, to assure those next generations feel they have a future in agricultural production and rural America. Another glaring problem of this legislation is that it seriously impairs the best hope for American agriculture's long-term viability and vitality--trade. America's ability to create new markets for its products and compete in those markets--is the key to America's future and our competitive position in the world. Our relationships with trading partners are very important to our agricultural producers. Exports account for 25 percent of gross cash sales for U.S. farmers and livestock producers--a projected total of $57 billion for this year. This report should have included Senator Grassley's trade amendment, which would have helped us avoid potential trade problems, which this bill will surely bring, while causing significant problems in our trade relationships. This farm bill takes us back down the dark road of tired, old farm policy. It is a glorified carbon copy of market-distorting legislation that will accelerate the vicious cycle of overproduction, low crop prices and soaring land values. Is this where we want U.S. agriculture to be six years from now? Is this the best way to improve America's agricultural competitiveness? We can do better--we should have done better. I believe we will be forced to do better before this six-year farm bill expires. That means we could be revisiting this issue before six years is up. There are many other gaping holes in this bill. The Senate's ban on packer ownership of livestock was stripped, without even a study to replace it. Farmers Savings Accounts was completely ignored. And by omitting the Senate farm bill's Cuban trade provision, which would have allowed private financing for food and medicine, this bill punishes U.S. agriculture by adhering to the counter-productive strategy of using food as a weapon. The work ethic of our agriculture producers is the best in the world. America's farmers and ranchers produce the highest quality agricultural goods in the world. As a Nebraskan and as an American, I am proud of that effort and record. American agriculture can compete in the world markets. This farm bill should be allowing U.S. producers the opportunity to compete and succeed not holding them back and placing blockades in front of them. This conference report is the result of election year politics at its worst--unimaginative legislation that throws money at complex problems requiring more than just additional dollars. The winners will be large agribusiness, big landowners and large farm operations. This bill will pass the Senate, as it has passed the House. We will need to come back and fix it one of these days. Maybe then, we will get it right. However, there is not much margin of error left--time and markets are not on our side. I would hope my colleagues think about the consequences of this legislation. This is the wrong farm policy, at the worst possible time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from California. As the Senators from Iowa and Nevada, who have just preceded me, have stated very clearly, this latest attempt to undermine the energy bill's renewable fuel standard--one of the few provisions of the bill that is truly bipartisan--is not in the best interest of this country's energy needs. And it deserves, as the senior Senator from Iowa has just said, some explanation as to what it does and does not do--this renewable fuel standard amendment, reached by a bipartisan group of Senators, that is in the present energy bill. It is claimed that it will provide a sweeping liability exemption for damage to public health or the environment resulting from the use of renewable fuels. This is a clear misrepresentation of this section of the energy bill. A few months ago, Majority Leader Daschle reached out to a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle to help craft the renewable fuel provision in the current energy bill that we debate today. The result is a historic agreement which has been endorsed by a majority of Governors, the Bush administration, agricultural organizations, the oil industry, and, yes--and yes--environmental and public health groups. The talks that produced this bipartisan compromise included representatives from the EPA, the American Lung Association, and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, among many others. I know--and I am sure my colleagues from California and other Senators in this body know--that the majority leader of the Senate has a strong commitment to the environment and to the health of all Americans. I suspect he would not agree to a provision he thought might ultimately harm the public's health or environment. None of us would. The safe harbor provision in this bill is there for one reason: to protect the public and the environment while at the same time not exposing manufacturers and distributors to frivolous lawsuits for simply complying with a Federal requirement, a Federal requirement that we imposed aimed at improving our air and water quality. This language in this bill is fair. It is reasonable. It is right. Yesterday, the Renewable Energy Action Project, REAP, a California- based coalition of environmental groups, public agencies, and renewable energy producers, placed a full-page ad in the Washington Post. The headline in the ad read: ``Renewable fuels mean cleaner air, cleaner water, and less dependence on foreign oil.'' And the ad went on to talk about the health benefits. The ad strongly supports the renewable fuels standard provision and calls the provision an important environmental victory that will protect America's drinking water and improve our air quality. This coalition also warned readers to remember the facts and not be surprised when they hear inflammatory and misleading information attacking the renewable fuel standard. We have heard the misleading information. We have heard it clearly. Let's review the facts. The facts are, this bill has solid safeguards. It requires, the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct studies of the long-term health and environmental effects of renewable fuels. Under this bill, the EPA Administrator has the authority, the jurisdiction, the control to either prohibit or allow the sale of renewable fuels that could adversely affect air or water quality or the public health. There is no safe harbor if the Administrator rules that the law has been broken or laws are violated. The safe harbor provision is very limited. It applies only to claims that a renewable fuel is ``defective in design or manufacture''--I know some in the legal business find that difficult to accept--and that meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is very important. The Clean Air Act is still the law of the land. All must comply with the law of the land. These requirements include compliance with requests for information about a fuel's public health and environmental effects as well as compliance with any regulations adopted by the EPA. If these requirements are not met, the safe harbor protection does not apply. This provision does not affect claims based on the wrongful release of a renewable fuel into the environment. Anyone harmed by a release of that kind would retain all the rights to sue, all the rights they now have under current law. If we change or strike the safe harbor provision in this bill, we will unravel the entire bipartisan agreement. We will, in fact, be taking several steps backward because the result will be the continued use of MTBE, which we know has health and environmental consequences. I do not think that is what my colleagues from California or any other colleague wants or intends. Just let me recap for a moment what the senior Senator from Iowa said about compliance and who is protected, which is very important. There is no safe harbor protection under this amendment, if the EPA Administrator rules that a manufacturer or any entity is not in compliance with the Clean Air Act. The language is very clear. I shall read briefly from that language in the bill: If it does not violate a control or prohibition imposed by the administrator under section 211 of the Clean Air Act, as amended by this act, and the manufacturer is in compliance with all requests for information under section 211(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by this act, in the event that the safe harbor under this section does not apply, the existence of a design defect or manufacturing defect shall be determined under otherwise applicable law. This is very clear. As I summarize, let me point out an article that appeared today in the Washington Post. This article is headlined ``Link Seen Between Cooking, Cancer . . . Frying, Baking Starches Creates A Carcinogen.'' It goes on to say: The process of frying and baking starchy foods such as potatoes and bread causes the formation of potentially harmful amounts of a chemical listed as a probable carcinogen. . . . It goes on. What much of this is also about is downstream, future technologies. No one can predict what is ahead. We now have a story questioning starchy foods and how we prepare them. I think there is some historical evidence that people have actually been baking bread for centuries and eating potatoes cooked many ways and have done quite well actually. Let's bring some common sense back to this debate. Let's bring some common sense to what we are trying to do here and apply the law based on common sense. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, with the adoption of this amendment, the Senate has affirmed its commitment to dealing with the reporting of greenhouse gases in a voluntary, incentive-based manner. This amendment provides for a voluntary registry for the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Under this type of provision, industries will have an opportunity to record reductions made in their emissions and receive credit for those reductions. The legislative record should clearly note that the provisions creating the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases originally contained in the underlying legislation will no longer take effect unless the voluntary registry does not achieve a critical mass of participation. If the voluntary registry system generates sufficient participation, the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions will never take effect. This amendment is not without problems, nor do I believe it is the best way to achieve robust participation in a voluntary registry. It contains several impediments that should be addressed in conference. The memorandum of agreement does not clearly spell out the roles of the various federal agencies in the execution of the duties proscribed. This is particularly troublesome for a voluntary registry. Those entities wishing to participate need the greatest clarity and certainty in order to have the greatest incentive to participate. Lack of certainty creates a disincentive and should be addressed in conference. There are onerous civil penalties contained is this amendment that should be removed. Greater baseline protection needs to be provided to ensure entities participating gain the rightful recognition for their efforts. Furthermore, I hope the conference will address the fundamental question of whether any ``trigger'' is necessary. The mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions has no true purpose. We already garner information on the totality of U.S. emissions through annual inventories established within and reported by the Energy Information Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. The only purpose for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions is to create the mechanism for the regulation of carbon dioxide. This option has been dismissed by the current Administration, and I would hope the final legislation does not create a mechanism to help bring this about in the future. Numerous other options for structuring a voluntary greenhouse gas emissions registry were discussed during the discourse on Title XI of this legislation. Senator Voinovich and I offered an amendment on April 18, 2002. It would have established a new and enhanced national greenhouse gas registry to record and recognize voluntary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. That registry was supported by a wide cross-section of American industry, the very entities who would be participating in such a registry. I have included a copy of an April 16 letter sent to all Senators and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. HAGEL. This amendment could provide an alternative structure for a voluntary registry for consideration in the conference committee. It was created in consultation with many other Senators and reflects the expertise of their input. It is a workable framework for a registry that would be robust and gain the greatest and most meaningful participation from American industry. This, after all, should be our goal in the final outcome. I appreciate the work of the sponsors of the amendment just adopted in putting the Senate on record in favor of dealing with the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions in a voluntary manner. And I look forward to the conference committee improving upon the work begun in the Senate to provide for the implementation of a voluntary greenhouse gas emissions registry. Exhibit 1 April 16, 2002. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Daschle: We write to encourage your support for a draft amendment to the Energy Bill that proposes substantial improvements to Title XI, including the establishment of a more effective national registry of greenhouse gas emissions and a more practical framework encouraging further voluntary efforts to reduce those emissions without harming our economy, our workers or our communities. Without the needed changes, Title XI of the Energy Bill would impose an unnecessary federal mandate to track and report greenhouse gas emissions on large and small businesses, as well as farmers, ranchers, some hospitals, universities, school systems and more. And yet, the intent of this costly and burdensome mandate is redundant. The federal government, without any federal mandate, already compiles an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with our national commitment to the ratified UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The draft amendment would establish a new and enhanced system to report and verify actions taken to reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and provide transferable credits to persons who do. By offering appropriate recognition of actions taken, the amendment will provide powerful incentives to participate without harming the economy, all the while strengthening our national climate policy strategy. The draft amendment provides a constructive, achievable and effective strategy to strengthen and improve the voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and the reporting of actions taken to reduce or avoid those emissions. We encourage you to support the amendment and work with Senators of both parties to secure its adoption. Thank you for your consideration of our views. While we have some additional concerns regarding the policy provisions of the bill, especially those provisions that appear to call for a target and a timetable, we are hopeful these issues will be resolved prior to final passage of the bill. In the meantime, we look forward to working with you on developing an effective climate policy strategy as part of our national energy policy. Sincerely, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Architectural Manufacturers Association, American Boiler Manufacturers Assn, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Portland Cement Alliance, American Public Power Association, American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania, Association of American Railroads, Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association, Danville [IL] Area Chamber of Commerce, Edison Electric Institute, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, Greater Bristol [CT] Chamber of Commerce, Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, Greater Merced [CA] Chamber of Commerce, Greater Victoria [TX] Chamber of Commerce, Idaho Mining Association, Illinois Valley Area Chamber of Commerce & Economic Development, Integrity Research Institute, IPC--The Association Connecting Electronic Industries, Kansas Petroleum Council, Leavenworth-Lansing [KS] Area Chamber of Commerce, Lorain [OH] County Chamber of Commerce, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, Metropolitan Evansville [IN] Chamber of Commerce, Naperville [IL] Area Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mining Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Society of Professional Engineers, Nuclear Energy Institute, O'Fallen [IL] Chamber of Commerce, Salt Institute, South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation, Texas Association of Business and Chambers of Commerce, The Siouxland [IA] Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Utah Rural Telecom Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, as I stated in a previous colloguy with my colleagues, we have reached broad agreement on many of the provisions within Title X related to the development and coordination of a national climate change policy. There remain considerable uncertainties about the causes of climate change, which has been noted by the National Academy of Sciences. Our focus should be on addressing these uncertainties, not taking drastic unwarranted action that could cause severe economic disruption. The revised provisions of Title X and other provisions will help reduce these uncertainties and take practical, market oriented steps to vastly improve our energy efficient technologies. The agreement appropriately calls for the creation of a national strategy to address the challenge of climate change. It also creates an interagency task force to better coordinate climate change policies with the Executive Branch. This is needed. Climate change policy cris- crosses the jurisdiction of multiple government agencies. Far too often questions posed to the previous administration were answered with the response, ``You'll have to ask someone else. We don't handle that area.'' There needs to be accountability for climate change within the Executive Branch. President Bush has already taken the initiative, and put forth a forward looking strategy to take action on climate change. His proposal includes: a reasonable goal for greenhouse gas emission reductions; a flexible way to achieve this goal, without harming economic growth; a voluntary emissions registry for industry and individuals to track their progress on greenhouse gas emissions; increased scientific research; increased investment in new energy efficient technologies; and efforts to work with other nations, particularly developing nations, on mutual efforts to address climate change. In crafting this strategy, President Bush created an interagency task force very similar to that proposed in this legislation. The Cabinet Secretaries and others within the Executive Office of the President involved in this process spent countless hours reviewing the underlying climate issues and ranges of policy options. The chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), James Connaughton, played the lead role in developing the strategy. This level of engagement and policy development on climate change is unprecedented. It can, and should, serve as a model for carrying out provisions of this legislation as ultimately approved by the House and Senate. As I stated in the colloquy included with the manager's amendment on Title X, I have remaining concerns regarding the creation of a National Office of Climate Change Policy with the Executive Office of the President (EOP). I do not disagree with the need for dedicated management within the EOP with regard to the creation and implementation of climate change policy. I understand the concerns for congressional oversight and the desire for those focused on climate change to be in positions subject to Senate confirmation and available for congressional testimony. However, I fail to see the need to create new bureaucracy within the EOP for this purpose. Chairman Connaughton effectively performed this role in the current administration's policy review and development. I see no reason the chairman of the Council on Environmental Policy could not continue to perform this function. Moreover, statutory authority already exists for a Senate-confirmed deputy director for the Council on Environmental Policy. This position has never been filled, and could be designated to focus solely on the area of climate change. There are several options that could be pursued in the conference committee to address the legitimate functions called for within Title X without creating a new office within the EOP. Title X also includes a Sense of the Congress resolution regarding participation by the United States in international efforts on climate change. This language is based on a resolution approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in August of 2001, but has been substantially revised. It now reflects the uncertainties recognized by the scientific community that are inherent with any predictions of future climate change. It acknowledges the commitment by the international community that actions taken should be appropriate to the economic development of each nation. The resolution also reflects the principals unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate through S. Res. 98 in July 1997--that U.S. participation in any international climate change treaty should be predicated on participation of all nations, including developing counties, and that such action must not harm the U.S. economy. The resolution appropriately calls on the United States to continue to demonstrate international leadership on climate change within our commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It does not call on the U.S. to re-engage in efforts to ratify the flawed Kyoto Protocol. This resolution is forward looking. At the appropriate time the United States should provide the international community with a proposal that would address the global challenge and global commitment of climate change. It is only responsible that we balance the economic interests of America with our environmental and energy interests. This resolution insists upon this balance. I appreciate the work of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in reaching the bipartisan agreement made in Title X. It is a significant accomplishment. I look forward to working with them to address the remaining issues in conference.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I would like to thank Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, and their staff, for their leadership in reaching an agreement on Title X. I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their efforts, particularly Senators Byrd and Stevens who authored many of the original provisions included in Title X. This agreement represents the hard work of reaching a bipartisan consensus on a very challenging and difficult issue. While recognizing the need for greater coordination of climate change policy, I share Senator Thompson's concerns regarding the overlapping bureaucracy created by a new White House office and look forward to addressing this issue more fully in conference. Nonetheless, through the agreement reached on Title X we have made considerable progress in advancing climate change policy on a bipartisan foundation.