Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I would like to make a brief statement about a man who in every way embodied the spirit and reality of an American patriot. Seldom does one have an opportunity to bump into someone during life's journey who has affected events of our time. Such a man was retired Marine Corps Colonel Bill Corson who passed away in July. His passing reminds us all of our own mortality and destiny and how important it is to live our lives with honor and dignity. That is how Bill Corson lived his. It was a privilege to know him. I will miss his wise counsel and friendship. I first met Bill in 1981 when I was serving as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration. He was a man who was deeply and unselfishly devoted to his country. Bill left college and enlisted in the Marine Corps during World War II. He served in Korea and Vietnam. His decorations included the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat ``V.'' He spent most of his career on special assignment with the CIA, the White House, the Marine Corps, and the State Department. Bill went on to teach at the U.S. Naval Academy and write several books on national security issues. Bill was relentless in the pursuit of meeting the challenges faced by the country he loved so much. He was a man of immense integrity, a man of knowledge, a man of ability, a man of compassion, a man of faith, who always gave his country his best. And America is stronger today because of this remarkable man. He was a friend of mine, and I extend heartfelt condolences to his wife Judy and his family. Madam President, I ask that the attached obituary from The Washington Post on Bill Corson be printed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, July 19, 2000] William R. Corson, 74, Author and Retired Marine Officer, Dies (By J.Y. Smith) William R. Corson, 74, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps and expert on counterinsurgency warfare who was almost court-martialed for publishing a book that was high critical of U.S. policy in Vietnam, died July 17 at Surburban Hospital. He had lung cancer. For much of his career, Col. Corson was an intelligence officer on special assignment with the CIA and the Marine Corps. He spoke Chinese and specialized in Asian affairs. In 1962, after four years as a liaison officer in Hong Kong, he was assigned to the office of the secretary of defense. This put him in touch with decision-making at the highest level as U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia deepened. He began studying Vietnam in the early 1950s, when France was still trying to hold on to its colonial possession. In 1966, he was ordered there as commanding officer of a Marine tank battalion. Early in 1967, he was named director of the Combined Action Program, in which small detachments of Marines served with South Vietnamese militia in villages throughout the country. The purpose of the program was to provide security from the communists and win the loyalty of the people to the Saigon government. According to an official Marine Corps history, the program was highly successful. Col. Corson was praised by his superiors for his ability to relate to Vietnamese villagers and win their confidence. In 1967, when he returned to the United States, he received another sensitive assignment in Washington, becoming deputy director of the Southeast Asia Intelligence Force in the office of the assistant secretary of defense. But by that time he was convinced that U.S. policies in Vietnam were doomed and he decided to write a book. The book, ``The Betrayal,'' argued that the Saigon government supported by Washington was corrupt and incompetent and that it was perceived by ordinary Vietnamese as being as much of a threat to their well-being as the communists. Unless the United States devised policies to take this into account, the book said, the war would be lost and American servicemen would have died in vain. Publication was set for July 1, 1968, by W.W. Norton and Co. Inc., a month after Col. Corson was scheduled to retire from the service. This brought into play Marine Corps regulation that required officers on active duty to submit statements on public policy to review before making them public. Col. Corson claimed that this did not apply to him because the book would not go on sale until after he had become a civilian. Marine Corps officials responded by having his retirement held up and by taking steps to convene a general court- martial. These plans were dropped on the grounds that they would only serve to draw attention to the book. Col. Corson's retirement went through a month later than originally scheduled. Co. Corson later taught history at Howard University for a year and then wrote several books on national security issues, including ``Promise or Peril,'' ``Consequences of Failure,'' ``The Armies of Ignorance'' and ``The New KGB'' with Robert T. Crowley. He also wrote a column on veterans affairs for Penthouse magazine for several years and was the publication's Washington editor. William Raymond Corson was born in Chicago on Sept. 25, 1925. He attended the University of Chicago, but left in 1943 to enlist in the Marine Corps during World War II. After the war, he graduated from the University of Miami, where he also received a master's degree in business and economics. He later received a doctorate in economics at American University. In 1949, Col. Corson was commissioned in the Marine Corps. He served in the Korean War in 1952. From 1953 to 1955, he was a student in the Chinese language course at the Naval Intelligence School in Washington. From 1964 to 1966, he taught a course on communism and revolutionary war at the U.S. Naval Academy. His military decorations included the Navy Commendation Medal with combat ``V''. Col. Corson, a resident of Potomac, was an elder and clerk of session at Harmon Presbyterian Church in Bethesda. His marriage to Charlotte Corson ended in divorce. Survivors include his wife, Judith C. Corson, and their three children, Adam, Zachary and Andrew, all of Potomac; two children from his first marriage, Christopher Corson of Silver Spring and David Corson of Greenville, S.C.; and five grandchildren.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Yes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, first, before we get on to today's schedule, I wish to commend my friend, the guest Chaplain, this morning. Father Damian is extended best wishes and thanks from this body. Father Damian and I share a few things in common. One is we graduated from the same high school just a few years apart--actually, Mr. President, many years apart. Father Damian had the unenviable task of trying to redefine the standards that my brothers and I debased at St. Bonaventure High School and Scotus High School in Columbus, NE--not an easy task but one that he achieved with great dignity and success. We are very proud of Father Damian for many reasons. He is pastor of two Catholic parishes in Omaha--St. Agnes and Our Lady of Guadalupe in south Omaha. Mr. President, you know a little bit about ethnic areas, coming from Colorado. Father Damian has done as much to bring the Hispanic community of Nebraska--indeed, middle America--together as any one individual I have known in the last few years, and he has done it with remarkable ability, with common sense and truth. People respect him not just because he wears the Lord's uniform but because he has done it the right way; he brings respect and dignity to all whom he touches; he conveys that as he deals with people. We are very proud of what he has been able to accomplish in our community and across the Midwest, aside from being nationally recognized for his achievements with many recognitions and honors. We are very proud to have him among us this morning. And again, on a personal note, it is wonderful to see Father Damian after making the trek to Washington. Under the able tutelage of our resident Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie, I know he has learned much this morning.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator. As a matter of fact, as the Senator knows, there was a little reception and party for my distinguished senior colleague, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, last night. Father Damian was able to participate and extend his long arm of justice and spiritual guidance over that gathering, even in the midst of some bandits who attended. The real coup de grace of last night's event was the distinguished senior Senator from New York toasting our colleague, Senator Kerrey--an old Navy toast. I observed that I never believed that serving in the Navy was a particular virtue, but nonetheless he was toasted with the Senator's eloquent remarks. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4444, the China PNTR legislation. Under a previous agreement, there are 10 amendments remaining for debate. Those Senators who have amendments on the list are encouraged to work with the bill managers on a time to complete debate on their amendments. Senators can expect votes on amendments to occur throughout today's session. Also, under the agreement, there are up to 6 hours of general debate remaining on the bill. It is hoped that action can be completed on this important trade bill by late this week or early next week. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. May I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Kennedy, Senator Craig would be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. No, I do not.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I further revise my unanimous consent request to include Senator Wellstone's request.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues to oppose the Thompson amendment. First, this is not a debate about whether national security or trade is the highest responsibility and priority of our Government. Of course, America's national security takes precedence over all other priorities. It is not helpful when we in this Chamber hear references to putting ``trade dollars and business interests ahead of national security.'' There is not one Member in this body who does not put America's national security interests ahead of all other interests, including trade interests. The national security interests of this country come first for all of us. That is not the issue. We need to understand very clearly the underlying bill granting China permanent normal trade relations. In granting PNTR to China, we allow our businesses and farmers the opportunity to take advantage of all the far reaching market-opening concessions China made to the United States when it signed the bilateral trade agreement with America last November. PNTR does not change or does not enhance China's access to America's markets. China has had access to our markets for years. It changes America's access to China's markets, which we have not had. There are no American trade concessions to China in PNTR. Our markets have long been open to China. Voting down PNTR means throwing away what the Chinese have finally agreed to do--give to our businesses and farmers a fair shot at their markets. We must be perfectly clear on this point as we continue this debate on PNTR. That is the issue. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thompson amendment, not because I think Senator Thompson is wrong about proliferation; quite the opposite. The proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction clearly represents one of the most serious threats to the security of the United States. It is precisely because it is such a serious problem, with real implications for all Americans--by the way, implications for the world--that it needs to be treated seriously and responsibly. Tacking this amendment to PNTR without any consideration in any committee of jurisdiction, without one hearing from proliferation experts, without understanding the national security, geopolitical, and economic consequences for America, would be irresponsible. Every Senator in this body agrees with Senator Thompson about the importance of stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology. I strongly disagree with his approach. His amendment would be bad for American nonproliferation efforts, bad for America's economic and trade interests, and bad for American national security. Proliferation is a global problem with implications for the security of the United States and all of our allies and friends across the world. We cannot deal effectively with proliferation on a unilateral basis. That approach will be ineffective and will only diminish our ability to influence the proliferator. We must have the help of our allies and our friends. It is folly to believe that unilateral sanctions by one nation will stop any nation from its proliferation activities, if that is the intent. It isn't that simple. History has shown clearly that unilateral sanctions are unworkable tools of foreign policy. They end up injuring the interests of the sanctioning nation. The only time a unilateral sanction may be effective is when it covers a unique American product or technology for which there is no foreign availability. Most of all, the items and technologies covered by the Thompson amendment do not fit this category. If we prohibit the sale of these items and technologies without ensuring that our allies and friends are on board, we simply diminish our influence over the target country. At the heart of the debate is how best to influence the behavior of proliferating nations. Unilateral sanctions will not encourage more responsible behavior on the part of China or any other country. This amendment might terminate a number of assistance programs that are clearly in America's interests to continue. For example, one of the sanctions in the Thompson amendment calls for a cutoff in Export-Import Bank financing for exports to the target country. Now, Export-Import Bank financing is designed to assist American exporters in their efforts to compete in foreign markets for business. It does not and has never been designed to assist foreigners. Cutting off Export-Import Bank financing hurts American exports. It is hard to imagine how this could have a positive effect on the target country's proliferation behavior. The American people are going to elect a new American President in 2 short months. Proliferation will be a major issue for the new President. The new President and his team must come up with a comprehensive strategy for dealing with it. It is not in the best interests of our national security to handicap our new President by tying his hands with the provisions in this amendment. I believe that China's entry into the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and our granting of PNTR to China, is of enormous strategic importance to the United States. It is not only a matter of trade. It is not only about leveling the playing field for American businesses and farmers who have never had a fair shot at China's markets. At its core, it is about helping to set China on the road to becoming a responsible member of the global community. It is about taking advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to help the Chinese people gain more control over their own destinies. We have heard, over the last few days, about human rights, religious rights, freedoms. All encompass this dynamic. Do we believe that we influence the behavior of a totalitarian nation to be better to its people and give its people more opportunities and enhance their lives, give them more control over their own destinies, by walking away from such a relationship? I do not think so. It has never been proven to be the case in history, and I do not think it will be proven to be the case this time. WTO membership does not permit the Chinese Government to exercise the kind of control over people's lives as it has over the past 50 years. Membership in the WTO requires the Chinese Government to undertake painful economic and legal reforms and to open its markets, open its society. Is this perfect? Of course not. Are there flaws? Of course there are. Are there imperfections? Of course there are. Will there be problems implementing it? Of course there will be. All of these things are in America's strategic interest, however. We need to support China's accession to the WTO and grant them PNTR. But if we attach this amendment, then we will not pass PNTR this year. As my friend from Iowa so succinctly put it: It will go down. And in whose best interest is that? Let us not forget that trade and prosperity encourage and enhance freedom, peace, and stability in the world. This amendment would also have a negative impact on our ability to gather intelligence on proliferators. The amendment requires the President to report to the Congress the names of every suspected proliferator in an unclassified report. Although this amendment urges the President to do this in a way that protects sensitive intelligence sources, it is unclear, of course, how that will happen. How will sources be protected if Congress follows the expedited voting procedures in this amendment for overturning a Presidential determination that sanctions should not be imposed for national security reasons? How will we debate the correctness of the President's decision without talking about the intelligence information that led to the President's decision in the first place? It is impossible. Do we believe that by exposing our intelligence sources, by telling the world what we suspect or know, we can have a positive effect on proliferation? We invest millions and millions of dollars and engage in multiyear projects to gain intelligence on proliferation activities around the world. We should not jeopardize that effort by having the President issue an unclassified report to Congress that lays out exactly what we know and how we were able to determine what we know. The amendment also seeks to involve our capital markets in foreign policy issues. I do not think--and this is as kindly as I can say it-- that this is a wise course of action under any circumstances. America is stronger because the world regards our markets, our capital markets, our financial markets, as the most trustworthy, honest, stable, and most fairly regulated in the world. In no place in our present system are America's capital markets used as a device of foreign policy. This would be dangerously irresponsible and unprecedented, and this would be done without one congressional hearing to examine the consequences of such action. America is the preeminent capital market in the world, but that position is under constant challenge. International investors can move their money, issue their stocks, access capital anywhere in the world, with the click of a mouse. Why would we want to inject new political redtape and risks and uncertainty into a system that hangs on such a precarious balance? For what? Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has been quoted on numerous occasions in the last few days on this issue. I remind my colleagues what Chairman Greenspan said about the Thompson proposal: So a most fundamental concern about this particular amendment is, it doesn't have any capacity of which I am aware to work. And by being put in effect, the only thing that strikes me as a reasonable expectation is it can harm us more than it would harm others. This amendment would cast a long shadow of doubt over the American financial market system. This is not in the best interests of America. I oppose this amendment because it has never received any consideration in any committee of jurisdiction. We have not heard from proliferation experts as to how this amendment would affect our national security. Proliferation is too serious, much too serious to deal with it in this manner. How much time have all our colleagues had to understand this, to develop an appreciation for the consequences of this action? How much time have we put into this? We know there have been four versions. The first I believe that any of us had a chance to look at this was yesterday. That is not responsible legislation. I oppose this amendment because it employs unilateral sanctions which history has proven are an ineffective way to achieve foreign policy goals. The amendment would tie the hands of the next President before he has had a chance to develop a comprehensive global nonproliferation policy. It would jeopardize intelligence sources and would cut off programs that are designed to benefit American exporters such as the Export-Import Bank. None of this makes any sense. These consequences would be very harmful to America's interests. I oppose this amendment because it injects foreign policy considerations into our financial regulatory and market systems. This would start us down a very dangerous and unprecedented path that would ultimately weaken our markets and consequently weaken this country. The underlying bill, PNTR, is of strategic significance to the United States. Passage of this bill, coupled with China's entering into the WTO, will help set China on the path toward economic and political reform, which is clearly in our national interest. It is clearly in the interests of the world. If we attach the Thompson amendment or any amendment to PNTR, we effectively kill PNTR this year and maybe for some time to come. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, all amendments to PNTR, and strongly support PNTR. I yield the floor. I believe we have a unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am prepared to make a statement relating to Senator Thompson's amendment. However, I understand my colleague from Iowa has a scheduling conflict and therefore needs to complete a statement by 10:10. I therefore ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be recognized for up to 8 minutes and that I be recognized following his statement.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this side yields back all time as well.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the China PNTR legislation. Under the order, the time until 10 a.m. will be equally divided for closing remarks on the Byrd amendment regarding subsidies. Therefore, the first vote of the day will occur at 10 a.m. I understand there may be a possibility that Senator Byrd will request a voice vote rather than a rollcall vote. But depending on that request, following the vote, debate will resume on the Thompson amendment No. 4132. The Senate will recess for the weekly party conferences from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. At 2:15, Senator Helms will be recognized to offer an amendment which will be debated at that time. Further amendments are anticipated; therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the day and into the evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, in response to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, on his first amendment regarding religious persecution, my opposition to his amendment is not because I believe there is religious freedom in China. Clearly, there is not. I believe every one of the Members of this body understands that as well. It is my opinion that if we adopt this amendment, it will have the opposite effect desired by its sponsors. The issue is: How do we best influence the behavior of China on human rights? I believe if we kill permanent normal trade relations with China, it will not be in the best interest of human rights in China. I share my colleague's concern, as do each of our colleagues in this body, about the repression of citizens' rights in China. Again, the question is, How do we best influence that behavior? How do we best deal with it? I believe, as well intentioned as this amendment is, that it is misguided and that it will kill, if adopted, this bill. If this amendment is adopted, effectively it will kill permanent normal trade relations this year and have an influence, I suspect, on this bill into next year. As my colleague has pointed out, if any amendment is attached to permanent normal trade relations, then it will go back to the House for another vote, we will have a conference. Then I believe because of time, if for no other reason, we will have no permanent normal trade relations with China. One of the most dynamic challenges of our time is America's relationship with China. This challenge represents opportunity and uncertainty for both nations. How the U.S.-China relationship unfolds will have immense consequences for the world and human rights. It is my opinion that it is in the best interests of America, China, and the world that America engage this relationship in every way on every field. Trade surely is a common denominator for the future of the world. We must encourage China's entrance into the World Trade Organization, and we should grant China PNTR. We must do this certainly, obviously, with a very clear eye to the understanding of the limitations, the challenges, and the realities of this relationship with China. We have an opportunity to move this relationship along a track with positive growth, potential possibilities, and for a future that is far brighter than the future that now exists in China. History will judge us harshly if we squander this opportunity. China is currently positioned to be admitted to the WTO, the 135- member international organization that works to break down trade barriers and foster free and fair trade among member countries. Once it becomes a member of the WTO, China must implement far-reaching domestic economic reforms, eliminate trade barriers, and strengthen its laws governing domestic business practices, environmental practices, and, yes, human rights is part of that. Human rights is part of that dynamic. These changes will set China on the road toward becoming a responsible member of the international community. This is clearly in our national interest, it is clearly in the interest of the world, and it is clearly in the interest of human rights in China. This debate is not only about trade. Far from it. It is much more than trade. For China's future, it must implement the reforms that WTO membership requires, yes, if its economy is to continue to grow and hundreds of millions of Chinese are to be lifted out of abject poverty and hunger. As nations prosper, the world becomes more peaceful and free. When there is freedom, peace, and prosperity, there is less conflict, less poverty, less hunger, and, yes, less war. That is in the interest of all peoples. I believe China's membership in the WTO will have a positive influence on human rights in China. Like people everywhere, the Chinese people want more control over their personal lives, more freedom, more rights. They want more control over their own destinies. People who are poor have little power. Membership in the WTO will, in the long run, increase the prosperity of the Chinese people. The reforms required by WTO membership will strengthen China's economy which will create jobs and boost standards of living, as it does elsewhere in the world, and bring more personal freedom. This is critical if the Chinese people are to lift themselves out of poverty and begin to gain more control over their own destinies. That is a major reason why Taiwan supports China's accession to the WTO. Martin Lee, leader of Hong Kong's democratic party and outspoken critic of China's Government, also supports China's membership in the WTO, as does, in fact, the Dalai Lama, as do many of China's most prominent human rights activists. On May 23 of this year, the House of Representatives voted to grant China PNTR status. The Senate should do the same. If Congress grants China PNTR, American businesses and agricultural producers will be able to compete in every segment of the Chinese market. If Congress fails to pass the Chinese PNTR legislation, we will lock ourselves out of the world's largest and fastest growing market, while our European and Japanese competitors rush in to fill the vacuum. That makes no sense. What sense does that make? How are we influencing the behavior of the Chinese Government? How are we improving human relations and religious freedoms in China when we walk away from China? One of the main benefits of China's membership in the WTO will be the mandatory reduction of its tariffs on agricultural products, as well as all goods and services. These changes, combined with PNTR for China, will enable America's agricultural producers to tap further and deeper into this huge potential market. Agricultural producers, manufacturers, and service providers will be free to select partners, marketers, buyers, and distributors in China, instead of being forced to go through state-owned trading companies or middlemen. The Chinese will also have to eliminate export subsidies for their agricultural and other products as well as import barriers such as quarantine and sanitary standards that are not based on sound science. And if the Chinese do not comply with their commitments under the agreement, the United States can petition the WTO to force them to do so. There will be strong economic and political incentives in place to encourage Chinese compliance. Our markets have long been open to China. Now it is their turn to open their markets to us. We have signed a bilateral trade agreement with China that effectively levels the playing field for the first time ever. But if we do not grant PNTR to China, then all the hard-won concessions in our trade agreement will not apply to the United States; however, they will apply to all other WTO members who do grant PNTR to China. That would represent a tremendous loss and mindless disservice to American businesses, farmers, and workers. And, yes, I say again, what effect would this have on improving rights and improving the Chinese behavior toward those rights and toward their own people? It is important to the world and to the Chinese people that China become integrated in the global trading system. China's economy will open more quickly to foreign exports and investments, increasing the interaction of the people of China with the rest of the world and increasing their standard of living and potential for more freedom. These developments will have a positive effect on all human rights in China, provide growth opportunities to American businesses and farmers and workers, and help stabilize a very important region of the world. This issue has serious geopolitical and, surely, national security interests attached to it for both America and the world, as well as trade and economic interests. They are all interconnected. We must be wise enough to understand this interwoven dynamic and act on it. When nations are trading with each other, they are rarely sending their armies against each other. These are common denominator self-interests for all nations, for all peoples. China's membership in the WTO and Congress' granting of PNTR are clearly in the best interests of, yes, America, and I believe in the best interests of China, the people of China, and the world. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill and oppose all amendments to it. I add one last point. It is not a matter, I say to the good Senator from Minnesota, of this body or of this Nation or of our people looking the other way when it comes to human rights violations in China. We are not looking the other way. We are finding a course that some of us believe is the correct course to influence the behavior of China. It is for that reason that I shall support this bill and oppose all amendments. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, if the other side is prepared to enter into time agreements, this side is as well. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers the following amendments, they be considered under the following debate times prior to votes in relation to these amendments: Wellstone, international religious freedom; Wellstone, human rights conditions; Wellstone, prison labor; Wellstone, right to organize; Wellstone, persecution of union organizers. Further, with respect to each amendment, there be 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Roth, or his designee. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2000, at 9:30 am to hold a hearing.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. to conduct a business meeting to consider S. 2962, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to address problems concerning methyl tertiary butyl ether, and for other purposes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on the E-Commerce Activities of the United States Postal Service.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2000 to mark up a reconciliation bill on the subject of retirement security.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Dorman, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the course of today's proceedings.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Bond. The Bond provision of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill would prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from implementing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to increase spring time releases of water from Missouri River dams to simulate the natural ``rise'' and ``fall'' in the Missouri River. This could be potentially devastating to Nebraska's farmers and ranchers and those whose livelihood depends on the Missouri River because the ``rise'' increases flood risk, and the ``fall'' interferes with barge traffic. This ``spring rise'' that increases flood risks down the Missouri and the Mississippi is particularly irresponsible when you take into account that over the last two years, FEMA has spent $32.6 million in flood disaster for the Missouri River. During the flood of 1993, the largest in recorded history, flood costs ranged between $12 and $16 billion. More importantly, main stem Missouri River Dams--the very ones Fish and Wildlife want to change-- prevented $4 billion in damages. If the amendment to strike the Bond provision from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill is successful, and this ``fall'' occurs, then there is a real potential that water levels are reduced to a point where barge traffic can't get through. Barge traffic is necessary to the farmer. It brings fertilizer up in the spring and brings the harvest to market in the fall. Senator Bond's amendment will ensure that water levels are kept at a navigable level. This provision is not new to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. It has been included in four previous appropriations measures that were signed into law by President Clinton. Now, President Clinton is threatening to veto this bill if it contains the Bond provision. I urge my colleagues to keep the Bond provision in this appropriations bill and keep the Missouri River at a reasonable and steady level.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today we have moved a step closer to implementing comprehensive campaign finance reform. With the help of Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000 will soon be placed on the Senate Calendar, ready for debate by the full Senate. I introduced the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000 along with Senators Bob Kerrey, Spence Abraham, Mike DeWine, Slade Gorton, Mary Landrieu, Craig Thomas, John Breaux, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Gordon Smith as a bi-partisan approach to campaign finance reform because we felt it was a common sense, relevant and realistic approach. We offered it as a bipartisan compromise to break the deadlock on campaign finance reform and to bring forth a vehicle that could address the main holes in the net of our current system. The purpose of our legislation is to place more control and responsibility for the conduct of campaigns directly in the hands of the candidates. Our legislation is not the solution for all of the problems now facing us, but I believe it is a good solid beginning to accomplish meaningful campaign finance reform. After a series of hearings in the Senate Rules Committee this spring on campaign finance reform, we will now be able to put a bill on the Senate Calendar that has bipartisan support. If we are to accomplish comprehensive reform this year, bipartisan support is essential and our bill has that support. While I was very pleased with the recent vote in Congress to require disclosure for the `527' organizations, that bill is not a substitute for more comprehensive campaign finance reform. It is a solution for a small problem. We need to continue to fight for campaign finance reform that is broader and more comprehensive. I am hopeful that the full Senate will be able to debate comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation, including the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000, this year. We have an opportunity to achieve something reasonable and responsible this year. Again, I would like to thank Senator McConnell for holding hearings in the Rules Committee on campaign finance reform and helping move the process along. I look forward to working with him and all Senators interested in advancing campaign finance reform.