Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I also concur with my colleagues and would like to ask Senator Inouye to provide his final comments.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, a day that will be seared into our national memory, the United States was suddenly, deliberately and viciously attached by ruthless terrorists. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed in a brief, violent, and unprecedented massacre. They died because they were Americans. Through the actions of Tuesday, the United States was violently shaken from a post-cold-war stupor. The attacks were well planned, well resourced, and well coordinated by deadly warriors willing to kill innocent civilians. It was an act of war. From a formidable, unseen enemy. Today, in the aftermath, America sifts through the rubble and debris, searching for survivors, victims, evidence, and answers. While the smoke still billows from the Pentagon and site of the World Trade Center, the sickening feeling of senseless devastation places an icy grip on our hearts. The outrage builds in our national soul as we hear of the phone calls to loved ones that ended with a dead line and of rescuers who became victims; as we learn the identities of the lost and began to understand the scope of this deliberate act of war perpetrated on American soil. September 11, 2001, is likely to emerge as the deadliest day in the history of the United States. More than 2,400 Americans perished in the attack on Pearl Harbor and nearly 1,500 lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy during the D-Day invasion. The Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day of the Civil War, resulted in more than 4,800 deaths and 2,800 missing. The death toll of Tuesday's terrorist attacks may reach the tens of thousands. The magnitude of these losses is unimaginable and is yet to be fully comprehended. The cold-blooded murderers who committed this act attempted to strike not just the twin towers of the World Trade Center but the twin pillars of America, our economic strength and our military might. They damaged the symbols of each--but they could not penetrate the essence of our Nation. America's indomitable spirit is undaunted. We've seen it in the actions of rescue workers who risked, and gave, their lives to save others. We've seen it in reports of brave actions attempted on the hijacked planes. We've seen it in the lines of volunteers outside blood banks and the prayer services held throughout this Nation. We've seen it in the steely determination of those ready to rebuild what has been lost. We've seen it in the resolve of a President and our military, ready, willing, and able to strike back at whoever we determine committed this horror. Our Government stands in unity. Republican and Democrat. House and Senate. In support of our Commander-in-Chief. We are at war with the scourge of our time: terrorism. This was not just an attack upon America. As Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair commented, it was an attack upon democracy. It was a blow against the civilized world. Our allies and those opposed to terrorism must unite with resolve and commitment to rid the earth of this plague. We cannot deliver a glancing blow, we must go at the root and strike at the heart of terrorist organizations and those nations granting them safe harbor. America will be forever changed. As with Pearl Harbor, our very way of life has been threatened. We must look at whatever shortcomings in either intelligence or security procedures allowed this tragedy to happen. But we must not relinquish the freedoms that make us Americans. If we abandon the liberties we cherish, the terrorists will have won. America will stand together, as we always have when our Nation is threatened. We will defeat this enemy. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said on December 8, 1941: No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory . . . Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our Armed Forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God. As I arrived at the Capitol early Wednesday morning, I was greeted by the sounds of fighter jets and military helicopters in the air above Washington. But I heard something else as well, a clear sound that pierced the morning air, a lone trumpeter nearby played the National Anthem. God bless the United States of America.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, America's property owners are increasingly pressured by more and more burdensome government regulations and restrictions. Federal agencies should comply with state and local laws on property rights, and ensure that our Nation's policies are implemented with minimal impact on property owners. Today, I am reintroducing legislation that would help enforce the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of private property rights. The Private Property Rights Act would help protect land owners in two ways. First, the bill would require the Federal Government to conduct an economic impact analysis prior to taking any action that would inhibit or restrict the use of private property. For the first time, the government would be forced to determine in advance how its actions will impact the property owner. Second, when government does take private property or restricts land use, the bill would allow landowners to plead their case in a Federal District Court instead of forcing them to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This means property owners could appeal any Federal taking of their property in their home state, rather than Washington, D.C. This bill has won the endorsement of the Nebraska Cattlemen, the Nebraska Farm Bureau, and the Defenders of Property Rights. Their letters of support are being submitted for the Record. The Private Property Rights Act is commonsense legislation that will return some justice to the system by reining in regulatory agencies, as well as giving the property owner a voice in the process. This is the fair thing to do. This is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, America's property owners are increasingly pressured by more and more burdensome government regulations and restrictions. Federal agencies should comply with state and local laws on property rights, and ensure that our Nation's policies are implemented with minimal impact on property owners. Today, I am reintroducing legislation that would help enforce the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of private property rights. The Private Property Rights Act would help protect land owners in two ways. First, the bill would require the Federal Government to conduct an economic impact analysis prior to taking any action that would inhibit or restrict the use of private property. For the first time, the government would be forced to determine in advance how its actions will impact the property owner. Second, when government does take private property or restricts land use, the bill would allow landowners to plead their case in a Federal District Court instead of forcing them to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This means property owners could appeal any Federal taking of their property in their home state, rather than Washington, D.C. This bill has won the endorsement of the Nebraska Cattlemen, the Nebraska Farm Bureau, and the Defenders of Property Rights. Their letters of support are being submitted for the Record. The Private Property Rights Act is commonsense legislation that will return some justice to the system by reining in regulatory agencies, as well as giving the property owner a voice in the process. This is the fair thing to do. This is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, who is, as we have heard today, one of the most distinguished veterans of World War II, as is his colleague, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. I am a bit of an interloper on this issue, except to say my father spent 3 years in the South Pacific during World War II in the Army Air Corps. So I know some of what my distinguished colleagues are talking. I am most appreciative of the efforts and the motives of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith. I know of his father's great sacrifice during World War II, meaning the sacrifice Senator Smith's family made to this country. I do not tread upon this subject lightly. I rise to oppose this amendment. The Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Hawaii have made very significant, substantive points as to why it is the wrong course of action, in the opinion of some, including this Senator from Nebraska. I will say first, there is surely no way a grateful nation can ever adequately compensate or express our feelings to those brave men and women who gave so much to this country, who were the subjects of the slave labor camps, the forced marches, the unspeakable brutality, except this: We should put some of this in some perspective. What, indeed, was it that these brave men and women fought and endured for? It was freedom. It was the liberty for a nation, an individual, to have the kind of life and dignity for which America has stood for over 200 years. That is what it was about. How do we compensate, how do we adequately thank these men and women? We cannot, of course, but we should remember this: What they fought for, what they endured, can be, in fact, recognized by knowing and understanding that the greatest legacy any of us can leave in life is a family, the world better than we found it, and accomplishing something much greater than our own self-interests. That is the most important dynamic for me as I have listened to this debate and as I have read the reasons and listened to the reasons that Senator Smith has put forward to essentially change our treaty obligations. Make no mistake. This is a very significant step that this body, this Congress, this Nation will take if, in fact, we vote for this amendment. Great nations honor their treaty commitments. Treaty commitments are important, and we can debate the specifics of sections and paragraphs of law and treaties, and as has been articulated rather directly and plainly this afternoon, there are various interpretations of that. But we should make it very clear that this great Nation will, in fact, live up to its commitments of our treaties, a commitment that we made 50 years ago when that treaty was signed in San Francisco, which was, as expressed here, commemorated last weekend. It is a 50- year treaty. Was it awkward? Was it done not exactly the right way? Were parts of that treaty misclassified? Why did we classify some of it in the way we did? I suppose we could take days, weeks, and months debating that, but that is part of a smaller issue. The bigger issue really, in fact, is: Are we, in fact, going to unilaterally reinterpret the commitment we gave to 48 other nations that signed this treaty 50 years ago? That is really the issue. American prisoners of war forced into slave labor by Japan during World War II suffered unspeakable brutality, and their treatment by Japanese overseers violated every standard of human decency. Their sacrifice and heroism now forms one of the most distinguished chapters in American history. While we must not forget these Americans who suffered so greatly, we also must not forget our country's historic and principled decision in the aftermath of this terrible conflict. Our peace treaty with Japan was not punitive. Although the United States had defeated a brutal enemy, we chose not to claim the spoils of war. Instead, the peace treaty with Japan reflected the great humanity, vision, spirit and generosity of the American people. Referred to at the time as a ``Peace of Reconciliation,'' it looked forward to Japan's economic recovery and not backward to its defeat. Most important, it reflected the new stirrings of a great and magnanimous superpower. In 1945, most Americans felt the terms of surrender with Japan were too lenient. By 1951, most Americans began to see Japan in a very different light--as a potential friend and ally in East Asia, not as an implacable foe. When John Foster Dulles negotiated our generous peace with Japan, waiving all reparation claims, the American public supported the treaty, and the Senate ratified it with a lopsided majority, 66-10, on March 20, 1952. The United States has stood behind this decision for 50 years. Last Saturday, on September 8, Secretary of State Powell and Japanese Foreign Minister Tanaka commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of San Francisco at San Francisco's War Memorial Opera House, and formally renewed the strategic partnership between the United States and Japan. This relationship stands as one of this country's most important--a tie of friendship and common interest that will grow stronger and become increasingly important to our strategic interest in East Asia and the world in the coming decades. Senate amendment No. 1157, which has been offered today, would prevent the State and Justice Departments from stating our San Francisco Treaty obligations in court. This action is not insignificant. It would hamper the President's ability to conduct United States foreign policy, and it would violate the spirit, and likely the letter, of one of the most significant treaties of the 20th century. This would set a dangerous precedent. While many of my distinguished colleagues may no longer agree with the decision made by the United States in 1951, it still stands as a treaty obligation and the official United States position in U.S. court cases. We are a nation that upholds the rule of law and honors its treaty commitments. How then should we honor and fairly compensate the Americans who suffered grievously as slave or forced labor in World War II without violating our long-held treaty obligation with Japan? Two of our World War II allies, Canada and the United Kingdom, recently provided compensation to their prisoners of war--recognizing that Japan has no obligation to do so under the Treaty of San Francisco. This is a model that we might consider using for the surviving American prisoners of war who suffered as Japanese slaves or forced laborers, without undermining our treaty obligations. Under the War Claims Act of 1948, and its 1952 amendment, the United States Government took all responsibility for compensating World War II prisoners of war. Our prisoners of war received some compensation in the decade following World War II. Senators Bingaman and Hatch introduced legislation, S. 1302, early last month to provide $20,000 to each veteran or civilian internee, or their surviving spouses. The last Congress, the 106th Congress, enacted Senate Concurrent Resolution 158 calling on the Secretary of State to facilitate discussions between American prisoners of war forced into slave labor during World War II and the Japanese companies that benefitted from their enslavement. The issue of forced and slave labor has been raised with the Japanese government at a variety of levels by our State Department. The recent decision by Germany to compensate slave and forced laborers during World War II may provide a model on this issue. Japan and the United States commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of San Francisco over the weekend. The treaty underpins and supports the United States security structure in East Asia, and forms the basis of our friendship with Japan. Treaty commitments and symbolism are important. We should not risk our reputation as a reliable treaty partner by unilaterally reinterpreting an important provision of this treaty that has stood for 50 years. Great nations are consistent. We should act appropriately. I will oppose this amendment. Once again, I ask my colleagues to pay careful attention to this amendment, and in the next couple of hours, if you are not aware of what this amendment does, please make yourself aware of it because if we vote for this amendment, it will be about much bigger things than the specific point of this amendment. I do not believe that is in the best interests of our country, the best interests of the world, and, quite honestly, the best interests of the very families and the legacies these brave men and women will leave behind and what they endured for us. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment as we vote this afternoon and once again recognize the Senator from New Hampshire for his motives, for his intent, but in this Senator's opinion it is the wrong approach to accomplish something that is important. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I strongly recommend Bill Riley to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I know that he will be an excellent appellate judge and will serve with distinction. He will bring to the bench the knowledge, experience and temperament he has acquired throughout his distinguished career. I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, and ranking member Hatch for the expeditious manner in which they handled Mr. Riley's nomination. Bill Riley received his undergraduate degree from the university of Nebraska in 1969 and graduated with distinction in 1972 from the university of nebraska College of Law. Bill began his career by clerking for the Honorable Donald P. Lay on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. That's right, the Eighth Circuit. Who would have known that almost 30 years later Bill would be nominated to the same court? Since 1973 Bill has practiced law with the firm of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler & Brennan of Omaha, where he is now chair of the firm's litigation department. Bill has had a varied trial practice including business litigation, Federal securities law, U.S. copyright, trademark and patent suits, ERISA claims, corporate environmental pollution claims and various contract disputes. Bill is board certified in civil trial practice by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, 1994, and an associate of the American Board of Trial Advocates. Bill is also a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, which, as you know, is limited to 1 percent of lawyers in each State and only lawyers with 15 years of trial experience. From 1992 to 1994 Bill also served as chair of the Federal Practice Committee for the U.S. District Court. Bill has found time to not only represent his clients, but to share his time and talents with other lawyers in Nebraska. Bill is a master attorney and charter member of the Robert M. Spire Inns of Court, which is a teaching organization for younger trial lawyers and law students. He has also been President of the Omaha Bar Association, a member of House of Delegates of the Nebraska State Bar Association, and past Chair of the Ethics Committee for the Nebraska State Bar Association. Over the years Bill has spoken at numerous legal seminars and conferences and his talents and time with other lawyers have contributed to the improvement of our legal system. In addition to his active trial practice, Bill also teaches Trial Practice as an Adjunct Professor at Creighton University School of Law. He is married to Norma J. Riley and has three children, Brian, Kevin, and Erin. Bill Riley is fully prepared for the challenges that lay ahead for the Eighth Circuit. He possesses the integrity, experience, intellect, and temperament to be an exceptional Federal judge. I strongly recommend his confirmation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators Frank Murkowski and Larry Craig today I introducing legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to domestic efforts on climate change. This legislation provides a forward-looking, balanced approach to address the challenge of climate change. There's a lot we can do, and this legislation lays out a comprehensive approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without damaging the U.S. economy. It provides an incentive-based, market oriented framework that will produce results. It focuses on developing advanced technologies to reduce, sequester or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies are the long term answer to this challenge. And it focuses our scientific research in this area. Specifically, the Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001 provides for: a national climate change strategy; new funding to advance the research, development and deployment of new technologies to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions $2 billion over 10 years; the creation of a national registry of voluntary actions that have been taken to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions; a pilot program to assist in the exports of advanced technology to developing countries, $1 billion over 10 years for a loan program; better coordination of federal scientific research; an office in the Department of Energy to coordinate the R&D efforts for new technologies, that is accountable to the Secretary, the President and the Congress. This legislation is very consistent with the approach presented by President Bush and builds on the efforts that Senators Murkowski, Craig, and I--along with Senator Byrd and others--have pursued for some time to advance our efforts in the area of climate change. I am pleased that Senators Pete Domenici, Pat Roberts, and Christopher Bond are also original cosponsors of this legislation.

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, today I am submitting a resolution that expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should commit itself to fighting hunger and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, and should demonstrate this commitment through increased financial assistance until the continent's current hunger trends are reversed. Hunger, poverty and disease are widespread in sub-Saharan Africa. Approximately 291 million individuals in the region, nearly half of the total population, live on less than $1 a day. Thirty-three of the world's 41 heavily indebted poor countries, HIPCs, are in sub-Saharan Africa. The United States and other developed countries can help. We must invest in poverty-focused development, directed towards investments that have proven to be effective in reducing hunger, in the areas of agriculture, health, education, micro-finance, and debt relief. We must support sub-Saharan African countries as they are becoming more democratic and are shaping locally based solutions to hunger and poverty with the participation of civil society and nongovernmental organizations. The urgency and tragedy of the AIDS pandemic has drawn important attention to the continent of sub-Saharan Africa. As we address the HIV/AIDS pandemic, we must also address hunger. Hunger and health are closely linked: poor people cannot feed themselves adequately, and the resulting malnourishment weakens their bodies' defense against AIDS and other infectious diseases. Poor communities cannot build clinics for AIDS-related education, diagnosis, or treatment, and even if clinics exist, poor and hungry people cannot afford fees for care or medicine. To address HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, we must also address the context that promotes this pandemic's spread.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, if I may respond to my friend from Connecticut, it is common knowledge that E4s run the Army, so I salute him with a big ``Hooah.''

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise today to wish the United States Army happy birthday. It was 226 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 226 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. Last week, I was in Crawford, Nebraska. I am helping with the renovation of the historic barracks at the old Ft. Robinson in western Nebraska. Ft. Robinson was home to the U.S. Army's ``Buffalo Soldiers''--the heroic black soldiers who fought as part of the U.S. Army after the Civil War into the early 20th Century. The 9th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers called Ft. Robinson home from 1885 to 1898. And the 10th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers were stationed at Ft. Robinson from 1902 to 1907. It is also interesting to note that Nebraska was home to the 25th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers who were stationed at Ft. Niobrara, in the north central part of Nebraska, from 1902 to 1907. The Buffalo Soldiers made up about twelve percent of the U.S. Army at the turn of the Century and they served our country valiantly and with great distinction. Eighteen Buffalo Soldiers earned the Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest award, fighting on the Western frontier. Five more earned the Medal of Honor for service during the Spanish American War. ``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 the Buffalo Soldiers 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 226th 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. Mr. President, on this, the 226th birthday of the Army, I say Happy Birthday and, in the great rich tradition of the U.S. Army, I proudly proclaim my annual Senate floor ``HOOAH!''

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on my amendment be vitiated.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, my intent is to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Campbell and Kyl, in offering this amendment which reconfirms the Federal obligation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, Department of Defense schools, and Impact Aid schools. While we all agree that steps need to be taken to modernize and improve the conditions of our schools nationwide, one question continually permeates this debate and makes consensus difficult. This question revolves around what should be the appropriate role of the Federal Government with respect to school construction. Senator Feinstein would like to reduce class size by constructing more classrooms. That is an admirable goal, one to which I think we all are committed. However, before the Senate authorizes funding for general school construction, we have an existing obligation that we should meet first. The Federal Government has a responsibility to educate Native American children and the children of men and women who serve the Federal Government. This obligation includes building and repairing the schools these children attend. The need for school repair is great. There is no dispute about this need. The General Accounting Office estimated in March 2000 that it will cost $112 billion to repair and modernize U.S. schools. The National Education Association estimates that it will cost more than $300 billion to repair and modernize U.S. schools. However, before we can allow Federal funds to flow to locally supported schools for these purposes, as noble and worthy as these purposes are, we, the Federal Government, have our first obligation to ensure the facility needs of BIA, DOD, and Impact Aid-supported schools are met. The Bureau of Indian Affairs operates 185 schools across the country. Impact Aid reaches more than 1,600 schools serving 1.2 million federally connected children. The Department of Defense operates 70 schools nationwide. The repair needs of these schools reach well over $2 billion. Due to military base realignments, the Fort Hood public school district in Texas is now using over 200 trailers to serve students. The Waynesville School District in Missouri needs to replace a high school that was built in the late 19th century. In my home State of Nebraska, your home State, Mr. President, the Bellevue public school district needs a new middle school, and the Winnebago School District has over $3 million in needed immediate repairs and construction. The amendment I offer today along with my colleagues from Arizona and Colorado will assure we meet our commitment to the children attending Bureau of Indian Affairs, Impact Aid, and Department of Defense schools, schools we clearly have a Federal obligation to support. We must meet these clear Federal obligations first. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, may I respond. I appreciate very much the work of my friends and colleagues from Nevada and Massachusetts. I would very much like to accept the invitation of the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts to at a later date have an opportunity to revisit this subject.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Good morning. I rise this morning to support the Gregg amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment, very simply, cuts the capital gains tax rate from 20 to 15 percent over a 2\1/2\- year period. The cut will sunset on December 31, 2003. The Gregg amendment is about one thing; it is about sustaining economic growth in this country. I think most Americans understand it is investment capital that fuels the engine of economic growth. That engine of economic growth is productivity. There is no growth without investment and productivity. We have been debating over the last few months--and we will continue to debate--a fiscal year 2002 budget. That budget calls for expenditures by the Federal Government of around $1.9 trillion. That is a lot of money. From where does that money come? It comes from tax revenues. At the same time we are debating the priorities of that $1.9 trillion budget, we are looking at expanding Government programs. As we prioritize the programs that are important for our people for future generations, that is part of our charge. That is part of the responsibility we have as policymakers. One of the things we have done recently is we have voted to set aside $300 billion over the next 10 years for a new prescription drug plan for Medicare. It is important. It is relevant. It is needed. We must move on it. What that will do is, of course, build onto an already very significant amount of uncontrollable budget expenditure, the Medicare program, another new very expensive program. We prioritize that issue in this country. We have essentially said, as did President Bush in the campaign last year, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, we want that prescription drug plan. So $300 billion has been set aside during the next 10 years to add on a new prescription drug plan. I suspect most Americans understand it is going to be far more than $300 billion over the next 10 years by the time we put it all in place. And the hidden cost of that which we do not factor in is the outyears after the 10 years when we will saddle all future Americans with that additional add-on expense of Medicare. When you look at that $1.9 trillion Federal budget today, you will find that about two-thirds of that is already locked in. That is nondiscretionary. There is nothing we can do about that. We can debate, we can pass laws, but unless we want to change Medicare, unless we essentially want to do away with parts of Medicare and other entitlement programs that we want, that we have prioritized, the fact is that two-thirds of our budget is already committed and we are adding to that. That is a decision we have all come to, as a society. We want that. The question comes back to what the Gregg amendment is all about. How do we continue to pay for that? How do we pay for that additional prescription drug plan that will cost billions, and hundreds of billions in the outyears, and all the other programs to which we have committed? We do that by sustaining our economic growth. Government does not produce growth. Government can only do certain things. It is the private sector that produces growth because it is the private sector that develops the productivity which enhances growth and develops and drives growth. Some of us believe the way to sustain growth is to free up more of that capital so more people in the private sector have that capital in their hands so they can save, they can invest, they can put it in new venture start-up firms that are the firms that will find the technologies and the solutions to the challenges that we have, not just today but what we will face tomorrow. When that investment capital dries up, you will see the consequences as our technology bogs down in every industry, in every discipline--science, health, medicine, national security, new energy sources, new technologies. It is capital, private capital that drives that. So this amendment is about freeing up some of that capital that is locked in because of ridiculous tax rates. In fact, the United States is one of the very few countries in the world that taxes capital, and we have about the highest capital tax rates of any country in the world. It make no sense to do this. The other thing it does, as we have seen very clearly from the last two cuts in the capital gains rates, in 1981 and 1997, it increases revenues into our Treasury. We find we are receiving more tax revenues as a result of freeing up those locked down assets. What does that mean? It means we win all the way around. Unfortunately, we take that fact of life, that reality, that more revenue comes in when we cut capital gains rates, and we score that as a negative. We don't score that as we should, that, in fact, we will find a new source of revenue, a bigger source of revenue. That is another issue. Capital gains taxes no longer affect just the wealthy. A recent U.S. Treasury Department study found that roughly three-quarters of all families in the United States own capital assets. The study further found that about 30 percent of those families whose incomes are less than $20,000 held capital assets, as did 50 percent of families with incomes between $20,000 and $50,000. So who pays the tax? It is not just the so-called wealthy, unless you are in that $20,000 to $50,000 bracket and you consider yourself wealthy. I don't think you do. According to IRS data from 1998, 25 million returns filed that year reported capital gains; they reported capital gains on their tax return. That represents about one in five returns. Of those, 40 percent reporting capital gains had incomes of less than $50,000 and 59 percent of those filing those returns with capital gains had incomes of less than $75,000. It is rather clear, I think, to most of us, that, in fact, capital assets are held by a very significant majority of Americans: pension plans, IRAs--wherever you invest. Whatever the pension plan is, most likely that plan is invested in stocks, in the productivity of this country, in the base of this country. So as a result of reducing capital gains taxes, the economy will continue to grow. We will have sustained growth creating more jobs, better jobs, generating more capital, and increasing productivity, the engine of growth. All sectors of the economy benefit, increasing more tax revenues into the U.S. Treasury. Sustaining economic growth is the purpose of the Gregg amendment. I encourage all my colleagues to take a serious look at this amendment. If they do, I believe they will come to the conclusion that this country needs a reduction in its capital gains tax. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, last week President Bush laid out an aggressive trade agenda for America. Few policy areas will be more critical to the future prosperity of not only the United States, but the world. Trade is essential to the continued growth of our economy. U.S. exports totaled more than $1 trillion last year, an increase of 12 percent from 1999. Those exports accounted for 11 percent of our GDP in 2000. The impact and importance of trade extends far beyond our borders. The nations of the world live in a global community--underpinned by a global economy. We are all directly affected by the development and growth of markets around the world. Stability, security, economics, markets, communications, trade, and investments are all interconnected. Taking advantage of the opportunities of this hopeful new world will require vision and leadership--bold Presidential leadership with the vision to see through the haze of the present and into the possibilities of the future. This will require leadership that is wise enough to seize the moment and help move the world forward. Nations of today are not the nations of yesterday. We must rise above past differences and old conflicts. This is not without risk. But the risk must be taken. Trade connects people. Increased commerce and the bridges it builds has broad implications for human rights, democracy and increased stability and freedom around the world. Trade binds nations together in strategic and political alliances. Throughout history trade and commerce have been key instruments that have helped break down totalitarian governments and dictatorships, and opened the doors to democracy and higher standards of living for all people--improved health, better diets, and hope for the future. Trade and international investment have helped pave the way for peace in many areas of the world. Trade and democracy are interconnected. Trade and investment lead to political and economic stability. The key to this is a strong trade agenda that pursues our interests while balancing them with other priorities. First and most important is the granting of Trade Promotion Authority to the President. Every day that goes by without this authority is another day of wasted opportunity. We cannot afford for America to stand idle while other nations negotiate trade agreements that give an advantage to the competitors of American goods and services. Congress needs to get this done, and get it done quickly. We have many other challenges that lie ahead. We need to move the Jordan and Vietnam Trade Agreements through Congress. We also should look to our own hemisphere. Canada and Mexico are our largest trading partners. American exports to Western Hemisphere nations comprised more than one-third of all U.S. exports in 2000. We must strengthen our ties to our Western Hemisphere neighbors. This is good for all peoples in this hemisphere. We need to move on renewing the Andean Trade Preference Act this year. And we should pursue a trade agreement with Chile, and a free trade agreement for all the Americas. We will face another hurdle in again granting normal trade relations to China. Establishing a stable trade relationship with China is in our best interest. Turning our backs on China will not improve human rights in China, promote greater freedom, or improve the stability in Asia--rather, it would have a dangerous and negative impact on all these important efforts. This year we must help lead efforts to launch another round of World Trade Organization negotiations. The challenges are many, and they are great, but so are the opportunities. President Bush has laid out a strong, forward-looking agenda on trade. He has an excellent team in Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Evans, and those charged with moving this agenda forward. I look forward to working with the President and his team on America's trade agenda. It is fundamental to our future. Trade and investment are building blocks for the world's mutual interests. We have the opportunity to make the world more stable, more secure, more prosperous, and more democratic. Let's not squander this very historic and unique opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, in the midst of the energy challenges facing our Nation lies a very unique opportunity. We have a chance to develop energy and environmental policies that work together. A clean environment and a strong energy policy need not be mutually exclusive. The forces of reality have brought us to this point. We have an energy problem that we cannot ignore. We also have a new administration which is re-evaluating our environmental policies, as any new administration would do, to ensure that what we are pursuing, and how we are pursuing it, is relevant, realistic, and achievable. In the past, there has been a division of these issues. Energy and environmental policies have been considered separately--and mostly at odds with one another. This has led to an unnecessary gap of confidence in both efforts. We have an opportunity to reverse this division and create integrated policies to pursue both critically important objectives of a steady energy supply and a clean environment. In the next few days, President Bush will release the administration's new energy policy. This policy will provide a balanced approach to meet the supply and demand imbalance we are now facing in this country. It will reflect our absolute need for a wide and deep energy supply portfolio, including the use of renewable energy and alternative energy sources. It would have been easy to defer this challenge, to delay the tough choices. But that's what got us into this mess. For the last 8 years, this country drifted without an energy policy, and today we are literally paying the price. Gas prices have hit record levels and are predicted to continue rising. The energy shortages in California will spread to other areas of this country during the hot summer months when the demand for energy will continue to outstrip supply. Finding solutions to problems requires bold ideas, common sense, imagination and sometimes unpopular choices. President Bush has shown courage and leadership for his willingness to address the problem and develop solutions. As we create a comprehensive and balanced policy to address our energy needs, we need to take into account our environmental priorities, particularly in the area of climate change. Just one example of where we can do this is nuclear energy production. Like solar and wind power, nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases--zero emissions. It is one of the most cost effective, reliable, available, and efficient forms of energy we have. Vast improvements in technology have made it one of the safest forms of energy production. Having nuclear energy play a vital role in our energy policy will enhance not only our energy supply but our environmental health as well. President Bush has assembled a cabinet level environmental task force to review climate change. They have been listening to and learning from some of the world's foremost meteorologists, climatologists, physicists, scientists, and environmental experts. The President has said that his administration will offer a science based, realistic, and achievable alternative to the Kyoto protocol. That is the responsible thing to do. President Bush merely stated the obvious when he declared the Kyoto protocol dead. Although his actions have been criticized, the forthrightness and clarity are refreshing on this issue. The Kyoto protocol would never have been in a position to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Clinton-Gore administration knew this as well. That is why they never submitted the treaty to the Senate even for debate and consideration. Despite the heated rhetoric on this issue from the other side of the Atlantic, no major industrialized nation has ratified the Kyoto protocol. In fact, Australia has said it will follow in rejecting the treaty. There is a reason for that. The Kyoto protocol would not work. It left out 134 nations, some of whom are among the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases. A treaty claiming to attempt to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases has no chance of being effective when it exempts some of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world--nations like China, India, South Korea, Brazil, and 130 other nations. My colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, whom I worked with in 1997 on S. Res. 98, addressed this point last week. S. Res. 98, or the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which the Senate agreed to by a vote of 95 to 0, stated that the United States should not agree to any treaty in Kyoto, or thereafter, which would place binding limits on the United States and other industrialized nations unless ``the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specificly scheduled commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing County Parties within the same compliance period.'' As Senator Byrd reiterated last week, developing countries must be included in any international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. From the moment it was signed, the Kyoto protocol was never a realistic or achievable way to move forward on climate change. In the meantime, we've lost precious time when we could have been exploring achievable and realistic ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have an opportunity now to discard an unworkable protocol and build a new consensus that will address climate change, and initiate efforts that are realistic and achievable. The United States is still a party to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio Treaty), which was signed by the United States and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992. We should go back to the framework of that treaty, before the Berlin Mandate that excluded developing countries from participation, and lay the groundwork for future international efforts. This gives us a strong base to work from. Many of the discussions during the negotiations for the Kyoto protocol have worked to build consensus on areas that will need to be part of any international initiative--flexible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the role of carbon sinks, and other areas. We can build on this progress in developing an alternative to Kyoto. If we are creative and if our partners will work with us in good faith, we can negotiate arrangements that are responsible and proactive. By addressing this issue domestically, the United States can demonstrate our commitment to climate change and show that meeting this challenge can be done in an integrated way that ensures a sound energy supply and economic stability. The world will not be better off if the United States slips into an energy crisis or if our economy falters. Both would set off shock waves that would reverberate around the world. By creating our own integrated policy, we can provide direction for how the world can address the dual challenges of energy and climate change. Senators Murkowski and Breaux have introduced a comprehensive energy bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, that will increase our domestic resources, and increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels. In the last Congress, Senators Murkowski, Byrd, Craig, and I had legislation that would dramatically increase funding for the research and development of technologies to provide cleaner energy sources, and to incentivize efforts to reduce or sequester greenhouse gases. We are building upon that legislation and will be reintroducing it soon. It will improve our scientific knowledge and lay out positive steps that we can take now to address climate change. A forward-looking domestic policy will demonstrate our commitment to this important issue, enhance what we genuinely know abut climate change, create more efficient energy sources, include the efforts of our agricultural sector, and have the additional effect of reducing air pollutants. Mr. President, as I stated earlier, we have an historic opportunity to create policies that will address both our energy and environmental priorities in a way that is not mutually exclusive. Policies that compliment each other and work together. As we enter the 21st century, we face a world that is integrated like never before in history. Just as foreign policy cannot be considered separate from national security or trade policy--energy policy cannot and should not be considered separate from environmental and economic policy. What we do in one policy area has dramatic implications for another--both in our nation and across the globe. Building sound policies for our future requires that we create integrated policies to address the challenges facing America and the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the amendment we are offering today would fully fund the Federal commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. When Congress approved IDEA in 1975, which mandates that States provide an appropriate education to students with special needs, it pledged to provide 40 percent of the funding. Congress has repeatedly passed nonbinding resolutions supporting the full funding of this commitment. However, even with large increases in funding over the last 5 years, from $3.1 billion in 1997 to $6.3 billion in 2001, the Federal portions of the funds for IDEA has not exceeded 15 percent. This leaves State governments and local school districts to pick up the tab for this federally mandated program, taking away vital local education funds and options. There is no question of the intent of this legislation. There was no question of the intent 25 years ago. Surely there is no question of the rightness of the intent of this program today. IDEA has proven to be a great success in ensuring all children, including those with special needs, receive a free and appropriate education across the United States. Prior to its enactment, only 50 percent of students with disabilities were receiving an appropriate education. Today the majority of children with disabilities are receiving an education in their neighborhood schools in regular classrooms with their nondisabled peers. High school graduation rates for special needs students have increased dramatically, and students served by IDEA are employed at twice the rate of older adults who did not benefit from this program. Congress did the right thing in passing IDEA 25 years ago. Today we are calling on Congress to again do the right thing, to fully fund the commitment Congress made to this program and to the people of this country. It is typical in a way of some of the things we do here in Washington to mandate a program and then leave the State or the local governments to pay for it. Congress said when it passed IDEA that it would provide 40 percent of the funding, but 25 years later we are providing barely 15 percent. This amendment will fulfill that commitment we made 25 years ago and increase Federal funding for this very important and relevant program. This amendment increases funding for IDEA in annual increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding is reached in fiscal year 2007. With these annual increments the amendment provides an additional $120 billion for IDEA over 10 years. The amendment will also free up at least $28.9 billion and up to $52.5 billion in education funds for local school districts by 2007. School districts will be eligible for additional flexibility if the State certifies they are meeting the requirements of the law. Forcing them to pick up the slack for Federal funding of IDEA has caused them to take funds away from other important priorities that they, the school boards, the teachers, the principals, and the parents think are most important--not what Washington thinks is most important but what those closest to education in America think is most important. This amendment will give local education authorities and taxpayers the ability to spend these funds as they see fit to fulfill their own education needs. They could hire more teachers, build new schools, and increase the technology in their schools. There are so many areas where they could use this funding to help our children everywhere achieve a better education. This amendment will give them the flexibility to do that. This amendment fulfills a commitment Congress made but has never kept. It increases funding for education. It frees up money for local school districts. It gives the local school districts more flexibility and at the same time fulfills the commitment to our disabled children. It restores local control to local dollars. This amendment will help our teachers and our State and local school officials to provide the best education possible for our young people. That should be our goal. In urging my colleagues to support our amendment, I point out it is because Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, and Harkin, and many others, both Republican and Democrat, over many years have led this effort to assure quality education for our disabled children. This amendment accomplishes what we set out to accomplish 25 years ago and more. And the ``more'' part of this amendment is to free up local school moneys to allow those local school districts to put that money where they believe their highest priorities are for education. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the time not be charged against this amendment.