Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I, like most of my colleagues today, have listened carefully to the remarks made about our colleague, Paul Coverdell. What it has been is a weaving together of a magnificent tapestry representing the life of a unique and complete human being-- Paul Coverdell. Paul Coverdell was a complete human being. We are all judged by many facets of our lives. In the end, what is really most important is: Did you leave the world better than you found it? That question has been answered rather assuredly today in the case of our friend Paul Coverdell. I found part of a speech that President Ronald Reagan gave. As a matter of fact, it was his last speech that he gave before the United Nations in September of 1988, before he left office. I think it captures, rather well, Paul Coverdell--a man who served his country in uniform, a man who served his country as head of the Peace Corps, who truly touched the world and made the world better, who served his country as a Senator, who helped all of us as a friend, and who was a faithful and wonderful and loving husband. These words--that I would like to recite in closing my remarks about Paul Coverdell--truly capture the essence of this remarkable colleague and friend of ours. As President Reagan ended his speech to the United Nations on September 26, 1988, he said--and we hear the echo of Paul Coverdell in these words-- . . . when we grow weary of the world and its troubles, when our faith in humanity falters, it is then that we must seek comfort and refreshment of spirit, in a deeper source of wisdom, one greater than ourselves. And so if future generations do say of us that, in our time, peace came closer, that we did bring about new seasons of truth and justice, it will be cause for great pride. But it shall be a cause of greater pride still, if it is also said that we were wise enough to know the deliberations of great leaders and great bodies are but overture; that the truly majestic music--the music of freedom, of justice, of peace--is the music made in forgetting self and seeking in silence the will of Him who made us. Thank you for your hospitality over the years. I bid you now farewell. And God bless you. We bid farewell to Paul Coverdell. And God bless Paul Coverdell. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on June 12, the administration's National Assessment Coordinating Office, established under the authority of the Office of the President, released the first National Assessment on Climate Change. This report entitled ``Climate Change Impacts on the United States,'' is a political document. It is not a mainstream science document. It has not been peer-reviewed. The National Assessment attempts to predict in detail climate changes region-by-region within the United States over 100 years. Yes, region by region for 100 years. The charade of this effort is criticized by the Environmental Protection Agency's web page. This morning I checked the EPA's web page for its comments on computer climate model. It states: Virtually all published estimates of how climate could change in the United States are the result of computer models. . . . These complicated models . . . are still not accurate enough to provide reliable forecasts on how the climate may change; and the several models often yield contradictory results . . . Scientists are unable to say whether particular regions will receive more or less rainfall; and for many regions they are unable to even state whether a wetter or drier climate is more likely. This is from this morning's web page. The National Assessment does not highlight the large amount of uncertainty in long-term climate forecasting. It was released in draft form even though two of the five sectoral studies are incomplete and still out in draft form for comment. The regional studies--which the EPA itself has warned are impossible to honestly conclude--are also incomplete. One might suspect that the priority was placed on releasing the report for a political time-table rather than for a scientific time-table. It uses two foreign computer models: The Canadian Centre model and Britain's ``Hadley Centre'' model. These are considered among the most extreme of all climate models available. As mentioned in an opinion piece Wednesday, June 14 in the New York Times entitled ``Warming Earth, Heated Rhetoric'' by Gregg Easterbrook, senior editor of The New Republic: One [model] predicts a catastrophic drought that kills off all trees in the American Southeast; the other forecasts increased rainfall and forest expansion in the Southeast. One of the country's most respected climate scientists, Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville has also been critical. Dr. Christy is the country's premier specialist on satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures. In a June 9 Associated Press story, Dr. Christy commented on a pre- release version of the National Assessment he had obtained. He stated, I read the Executive Summary and the following sections through page 9--``Looking at America's Climate.'' I stopped at that point thinking, ``This must be some kind of joke.'' It seemed to me that this document was written by a committee of Greenpeace, Ted Turner, Al Gore and Stephen King. I saw no attempt at scientific objectivity. This document is an evangelistic statement about a coming apocalypse, not a scientific statement about the evolution of a complicated system with significant uncertainties. As it is, the document will be easily dismissed by anyone with access to information about the uncertainties of the issue. The National Assessment declares that there is a direct connection between increased global temperatures and increases in man-made greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. While there are many disagreements in the scientific community, there is a consensus that it is impossible to make that connection. Has the world been warming? Yes, the world has been warming for 11,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. In the last 100 years, global temperatures have increased by about one degree. Is this warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Let me quote from Dr. Marsh, a researcher at the Argonne National Laboratory, New York Times, Sept. 8, 1999: Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that contributes only about 3% of the greenhouse effect, and man-made sources represent some 3% to 4% of carbon dioxide emissions, the rest being from natural sources. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. . . . if all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to vanish magically, it would lead to a one degree centigrade decrease in global temperatures. These are the comments of a researcher at a U.S. Government national laboratory. Even the possible current moderate warming is not well understood. Ground temperatures have risen slightly in the past two decades. But more accurate--and truly global--satellite temperature measurements have shown no warming in the 20 years those measurements have been available. In fact, they have shown a slight cooling. Is there fluctuation in the climate? Of course. Ice cores sampling has shown wide fluctuations in the global climate long before the emergency of man, much less the industrial age. Are current fluctuations man made? The simple answer is that we do not know. What do we know and what do we need to do to do more? We need more scientific research, honest scientific research. We need more technological development. We need to involve both the private and public sectors in working on this issue. Senator Murkowski, Senator Craig, Senator Byrd, and I have all introduced legislation that would do exactly that. But most of all, we need to restore a bipartisan, commonsense, science-based, market-driven approach to this important issue. We do not need more precooked political nonsense, political tracts, masquerading as unbiased science. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to wish the United States Army happy birthday. It was 225 years ago today, in 1775, that the Continental Army of the United States was formed. That Continental Army of the United States has had a rich, important impact on our country. Millions of men and women over the last 225 years have served in the senior branch of services of our military forces of the U.S. Army. The Army is interwoven into the culture of America. Those who have had the great privilege of serving in this country in the U.S. Army understand that. It may have been a little difficult during basic training for some, but as we progressed through basic training and became Army men and women, formed, shaped, and molded from raw recruiting into something that America could be proud of, and we could be proud of ourselves, that touch, that impact, that molding, that shape, has defined our country, has defined our culture, and has, in fact, defined the world. The U.S. Army has had an incredible effect on our country and the world for the better. ``Duty, honor, country'' is the motto of the U.S. Army. It is America. It is who we are. Not one generation of Americans who have served in the U.S. Army have gone untouched by not only what America is about but what the Army is about. It is a shaping and molding that has touched lives in ways that are hard to explain, just as the Army has touched our national life and made the world more secure, more prosperous, and a better world for all mankind. On this 225th birthday of the U.S. Army, as an old infantry-man who served in the U.S. Army, I say happy birthday to the veterans of this country. We recognize and acknowledge and pay tribute to those generations who have served before some of us had the opportunity to serve a newer Army. It is the Army that has laid the foundation for our services today and for a stronger America. To that, we say, again, happy birthday and thank you, in the great rich tradition of the U.S. Army. Mr. President, we say ``hoo-ha.''

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to support the McCain-Levin amendment. Kosovo is complicated. It is frustrating, dangerous, and fragile. But I believe Kosovo and the Balkans are very clearly in the legitimate sphere of American security. As I listened to the debate last night and this morning--good, committed, informed debate--I believe we are not debating the congressional constitutional responsibility or authority in foreign policy. I don't think that is the issue. It seems to me that the issue which, in my opinion, comes down two ways, is: Is this action a wise and correct action at this time? Two, what are the consequences of this action? Make no mistake, there will be consequences. We are always confronted with imperfect choices. Conflict, peacekeeping, war, how you deal with these problems always represents an imprecise business. We don't know the answers. We don't know the outcomes. We don't know all the dangers and complications. These don't come in tidy little boxes, or wrapped up in easy-to-figure-out little equations. There are many unknowns. That is one of the reasons why it is very unwise and very dangerous to set arbitrary deadlines. They never work. Now, we have heard a lot this morning and last night about what our European allies have not done. Well, in the fairness of this debate, I think we should again remind those listening that, currently, America's ground troops in Kosovo represent less than 15 percent. Less than 15 percent of all ground troops in Kosovo are American. That means 85 percent of the ground troops are European--including, by the way, the Russians. I think something else that is relevant to this debate is the fact that we have been there in Kosovo in this capacity, a peacekeeping responsibility, for less than 1 year. If we want to take this to the logical conclusion of lack of congressional authority as to when, where, how, and how long we are going to commit our peacekeeping forces, then I suggest that we go back and have a good debate on Korea, and on Japan, and on Europe. We did have a debate on Kosovo last year, and we had a rather significant vote on moving forward in supporting the President's military action. Now, it stands to some reason that if we made that investment and we had that vote and the American public was tuned in, informed, educated, and their representatives were representing them in this body, they had some sense of where we were going with this. Are we going to walk away from what we achieved and have been achieving? It is messy, yes; uncertain, yes; fragile, yes; complicated, yes; but that is a very relevant point to this debate. Then what is connected to that question is, what happens next? Does anybody in this Chamber believe that the Byrd-Warner amendment, planning to plan to withdraw, is a policy? Withdrawal is not a policy. Why are we doing it now--less than 6 months before America elects a new President? We all of a sudden are quite agitated and excited about Kosovo. We have had some time to deal with this. So we will ask our new President to take office in a matter of months, at the same time forming a new national policy team, new security, foreign policy, working with new leaders, the Congress, the nuances and relationships that are all part of that, and imposed upon him, encumbering him, is this arbitrary deadline and this plan to withdraw. I don't think that is responsible. We leave this new President little latitude, little flexibility. What about the magnitude and seriousness of this debate? If this is so important, why has it not been brought before the Foreign Relations Committee? Certainly, the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate should have some responsibility in this debate. We have not had 1 minute of debate on this. This came up in an Appropriations Committee meeting, with no formal notice, and boom. This is responsible policymaking? I don't think so. This is not a thoughtful approach to something this serious. We need to listen to those who have responsibility for our troops on the ground. General Clark and others have had the interest of our young men and women as their main responsibility. What do they say about this? They have said it is irresponsible, with dangerous consequences. A heavy, dark cloud of dangerous uncertainty hangs over this debate. What are the other consequences? Yes, there will be a vacuum. But there are connecting rods as well here. Does anybody doubt, if we would pass this, that this would not have an effect on Milosevic and others like him, and their interpretation, and their waiting game, and all that they would do to wait us out? Of course not. Let's get real. Let's get real in this body. This isn't theory. Does anybody doubt that this would not have a responsible consequence to our relationship with our NATO allies, at the very time we are trying to convince our NATO allies to go with us on a national missile defense system--and we will need that concurrence and cooperation with our NATO allies if we are going to, in fact, go forward with a ground-based national missile defense system because we will need some radar sites. Does this have an effect on that? Of course. Does it have an effect on our new relationship with the President of Russia? Of course it does. Does it have an effect on how the Chinese and the Taiwanese see America's commitment to its allies? Of course it does. These are big issues out here, Mr. President. We better understand the bigger picture. There will certainly be consequences in the Balkans. Do we think if we do leave, we plan to leave the Balkans better than we found it? I don't think so. America's word means something. America's commitment means something. I believe stability in Europe, stability in the Balkans is in the interest of America. There is legitimate debate on the other side, maybe, but I think it is in our interest. America has always represented hope, a better life, a better world. We have made the world better. Yes, we can debate all of our military conflicts, involvements, and engagements since World War II--Vietnam, Korea, Kuwait. Have we made mistakes? Yes, we have. But, generally, is the world better off, more peaceful, more prosperous, with more hope today because of America? Of course it is. There is one other thing we tend to forget: As the leader of the world, we will always be asked and be required to carry a heavier burden than any other nation. We may not like that; it may be unfair, but it is a fact. One of the reasons America is the greatest Nation on earth, in the history of man, is because we have had the unique ability to control our own destiny. How have we done that? We have done it because we were engaged; we were vigilant; we were strong. We anchored our country and our beliefs on principles, trusts, and values. Others have responded to that. These are all part of the dynamics of this debate. I do not want my 9-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son to inherit a world where America does not lead, if for no other reason, the next great power in the world may not be as benevolent or judicious as America has been with its power over the last 200 years. All of these dynamics are part of this equation. This body must be very serious in understanding that. Let Americans speak in November. Let our people speak. Elect a new President. That new President will begin a new, productive, positive relationship with the Congress. We can together work on a foreign policy that makes sense in a timely, effective way. That is the answer. That is a wiser course of action. That is a more responsible course of action than voting for the Byrd-Warner amendment. I might say before I end that it is because of Chairman Warner's efforts and leadership. That has been recounted last night and today. The Europeans have in fact stepped up each day, each month, to more and more responsibility to their obligations. And I thank the chairman for that. Rarely do I disagree with him, but in this case I do. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Levin amendment. I yield the floor. Thank you.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, if it is a convenience to the distinguished Senator from Texas, I would be very happy to go after the Senator from Texas, if that helps her schedule.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 1 hour of debate be allocated to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, first, let me acknowledge the leadership of my colleagues from Georgia and Kansas for bringing attention and focus to an area that does not often get appropriate focus. It is about international affairs--the connecting rods to our lives in a world now that is, in fact, globally connected. That global community is underpinned by a global economy. There is not a dynamic of the world today, not an action taken nor a consequence of that action, that does not affect America, that does not affect our future. I am grateful that Senators Cleland and Roberts have taken the time and the leadership to focus on an area of such importance to our country. I point out an op-ed piece that appeared in Monday's Washington Post, written by Robert Kagan, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. Kagan is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He echoes what Senators Roberts and Cleland have talked about; that is, the vital interests of our country in world affairs. He suggests that America's two Presidential candidates this year, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore, focus attention in the remaining months of this Presidential campaign on international issues. He lays out a number of areas in the world that are of vital consequence and concern to not only those particular regions but to the United States. The point is, others are coming to the same conclusions and realizations as our friends from Georgia and Kansas: that international relations is the completeness of all of our policies--trade, national security, economy, geopolitics. It is, in fact, a complete policy. We are living in a most unique time in history, a time when everything is possible. We live in a time when we can do more good for mankind than ever in the history of the world. Why is that? It deserves some perspective and some review. Over the last 50 years, it has been the multilateral organizations of the world, beginning with the visionary and foresighted leadership of Harry Truman after World War II and a Republican Congress, working jointly to develop and implement multilateral policies and organizations such as the United Nations, such as what was born at Breton Woods, the IMF, the World Bank, trade organizations, multilateral peace, financial organizations--all are imperfect, all are flawed. But in the real world, as most of us understand, the choice is seldom between all good, the easy choice, and all bad. Normally our foreign policy and every dynamic of that foreign policy, be it foreign aid, be it national security interests, be it geopolitical interests, falls somewhere between all good and all bad. It is a difficult position to have to work our way through. With this weekend's upcoming annual meetings for the IMF and the World Bank and the number of guests who will be coming to Washington--I suspect not exactly to celebrate the IMF and the World Bank and the World Trade Organization and other multilateral organizations--it is important that we bring some perspective to the question that fits very well into the larger question Senators Roberts and Cleland have asked; that is, is the world better off with a World Trade Organization, with a world trade regime, its focus being to open up markets, break down barriers, allow all nations to prosper? And how do they prosper? They prosper through free trade. Underpinning the free trade is individual liberty, individual freedom, emerging democracies, emerging markets. We could scrap the World Trade Organization, 135 nations, and go back to a time, pre-World War II, that essentially resulted in two world wars, where there would be no trading regime. Those countries that are now locked in poverty have to go it on their own. That is too bad. We can scrap the World Trade Organization. While we are at it, have the IMF and the World Bank added to any prosperity in the world? Have they made mistakes? Yes. Let's examine some of the underlying and most critical and realistic dynamics of instability in the world. We do know that when there is instability, there is no prosperity and there is no peace. What causes instability? Let's examine what it is that causes instability. When you have nations trapped in the cycle of hopelessness and the perpetuation of that cycle because of no hope, no future, poverty, hunger, pestilence, what do we think is going to happen? History is rather complete in instructing us on this point: conflict and war. When there is conflict and war, is there an opportunity to advance the causes of mankind? No. Why is that? Let's start with no trading. There are no markets. Do we really believe we can influence the behavior of nations with no contact, no engagement, no trade? I don't think so. As many of our guests who are arriving now in Washington, who will parade up and down the streets, burning the effigies of our President and the Congress and the World Trade Organization and the IMF and the World Bank--and I believe sincerely their motives are pure; that they wish to pull up out of abject poverty the more than 1.5 billion people in the world today, which is a worthy, noble cause--I think the record over the last 50 years is rather complete in how that has been done to help other nations over the last 50 years do that a little differently than tearing down the multilateral institutions that have added to prosperity and a better life and a hope for mankind. I will share with this body a couple of facts from the 1999 Freedom House survey. Most of us know of the organization called Freedom House. It issued its first report in 1978. This is what Freedom House issued on December 21, 1999: 85 countries out of 192 nations today are considered free. That represents 44 percent of the countries in the world today. That is the second largest number of free countries in the history of man. That represents 2.34 billion people living in free countries with individual liberties, 40 percent of all the people in the world. Fifty-nine countries are partly free, 31 percent of the countries. That represents 1.5 billion people living in partly free countries, 25 percent of the world's population. What are the real numbers? Seventy-five percent of the countries, largest in the history of mankind, are living in either free or partly free countries. Forty-eight countries not free. That represents 25 percent of the population of the world. What does that mean? Let's go back and examine about 100 years ago where the world was. At the turn of the century, no country on Earth, including the United States, had universal suffrage. Less than 100 years ago, the United States did not allow women to vote, and there were other human rights violations we accepted in this country. My point is, the United States must be rather careful not to moralize and preach to the rest of the world. Yes, we anchor who we are on the foundation of our democracy and equal rights, but it even took America 250 years to get as far as we have come. So we should, if nothing else, at least be mindful of that as we dictate to other countries. Now, as we examine a number of the points that have been made this morning and will be made throughout the next few months about foreign policy, it is important for us to have some appreciation and lend some perspective to not only the tremendous progress that has been made in the world today, and the hope we have for tomorrow, and the ability and the opportunities we have to make the world better--and it is fundamentally about productive capacity, individual freedoms, trade, free markets, private investment, rule of law, rights, contract law, all that America represents, all that three- fourths of the world countries and population represent. It is solutions, creative solutions, for which we are looking. Creative solutions will come as a result of imaginative and bold leadership. As I have said often when I have been challenged about America's role in the world and is America burdening itself with too much of a role--incidentally, what should our role be? That is a legitimate debate. But I have said this: America has made its mistakes. But think of it in this context. If America decides that its burden is too heavy, whether that be in the area of contributions to the United Nations, to NATO, wherever we are around the world, as an investment, we believe in markets, in freedom, in opportunity, in less war, less conflict, a future for our children, for whatever reason, if we believe we are too far extended--and that is a legitimate question--and we will have an ongoing dynamic debate on the issue and we should remind ourselves of this--the next great nation on earth--and there will be a next great nation if America chooses to recede back into the cold, gray darkness of mediocrity--that next great, powerful nation may not be quite as judicious and benevolent with its power as America has been with our power. That is not the world that I wish my 7-year-old and 9- year-old children to inherit. If there is an additional burden--and there is--for America to carry on to be the world's leader, for me, it is not only worthy of the objective to continue to help all nations and raise all nations' opportunities, but realistically, geopolitically, it is the only answer for the kind of world that we want not just for our children but for all children of the world. So rather than tear down organizations and tear down trade regimes and tear down organizations that are focused on making the world better, we should ask our friends who are coming to Washington this week to give us creative solutions and be part of those creative solutions. Mr. President, I am grateful for an opportunity to share some thoughts and hopefully make a contribution to what my friend from Georgia and my friend from Kansas have been about today and earlier in our session. This will continue throughout this year because through this education and this information and this exchange of thoughts and ideas we will fundamentally broaden and deepen the foundation of who we are as a free nation and not be afraid of this debate in front of the world. It is the debate, the borderless challenges of our time-- terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, the scourge of our time, illegal drugs--that must be confronted and dealt with as a body of all nations, all peoples. Understanding and dealing with these fundamental challenges and issues are in the common denominator, mutual self- interest of all peoples. Again, I am grateful for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey, to submit a resolution expressing Congress' support for a national moment of remembrance, to be observed on Memorial Day each year, in order to appropriately honor American patriots lost in pursuit of peace and liberty around the world. Should Congress pass this resolution, ``Taps'' will be played at 3 pm (Eastern Standard Time) on Memorial Day each year, in honor of those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. In other words, this resolution seeks to put the ``memorial'' back into Memorial Day. It is my hope that this moment of remembrance will bring all Americans together in a spirit of respect, patriotism and gratitude. Our intention is to help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our great Nation. No Greater Love, a nonprofit organization which assists the families of Americans who died in service to their country or in terrorist acts, has helped support this resolution as part of their ``Proud to Remember'' campaign. We are all grateful for their efforts.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak I support of the joint resolution, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the American flag. From the birth of our nation, the flag has represented all that is good and decent about our country. On countless occasions, on battlefields across the world, the Stars and Stripes led young Americans into battle. For those who paid the ultimate price for our nation, the flag blanketed their journey and graced their final resting place. Mr. President, the Flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is a symbol so sacred to our nation that we teach our children not to let it touch the ground. It flies over our schools, our churches and synagogues, our courts, our seats of government, and homes across America. It unites all Americans regardless of race, creed or color. The flag is not just a symbol of America, it is America. Those who oppose this constitutional amendment say it impinges on freedom of speech and violates our Constitution. As a veteran who was wounded twice in Vietnam protecting the principles of freedoms that Americans hold sacred, I am a strong supporter of the first amendment. However, I believe this is a hollow argument. There are many limits placed on ``free speech,'' including limiting yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Other freedoms of speech and expression are limited by our slander and libel laws. In 1989 and 1990 the Supreme Court struck down flag protection laws by narrow votes. The Court has an obligation to protect and preserve our fundamental rights as citizens. But the American people understand the difference between freedom of speech and ``anything goes.'' When citizens disagree with our national policy, there are a number of options available to them other than destroying the American Flag to make their point. Let them protest, let them write to their newspaper, let them organize, let them march, let them shout to the rooftops--but we should not let them burn the flag. Too many have died defending the flag for us to allow it be used in any way that does not honor their sacrifice. Mr. President, in a day where too often we lament what has gone wrong with America, it's time to make a stand for decency, for honor and for pride in our nation. I urge my colleagues to support the flag amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2251, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act regarding crop insurance reform, I am an original co-sponsor of this important legislation and I thank my colleagues Senators Bob Kerrey and Pat Roberts for their leadership on this issue. Crop insurance reform has been a major, bipartisan legislative effort for farm state Senators. Reforming crop insurance is vital to America's agricultural producers and to the rural economies in all of our ag- producing states. We need to pass this legislation today. The need for crop insurance reform has been a common denominator in my conversations with all of Nebraska's agricultural producers and agribusinesses, as I am sure it has for my colleagues as they have spoken with ag-producers across the country. Every commodity organization and farm group that I've spoken with has urged Congress to reform and improve America's crop insurance programs. Why is crop insurance important? By increasing and expanding private crop insurance coverage, ag producers can make long-term market decisions without being devastated by short-term economic downturns. If we can assist in making crop insurance--an important risk management tool--more affordable and expansive, we will help producers weather the bad times. S. 2251 makes a number of important changes to the crop insurance system that will benefit America's ag producers. This bill establishes a new premium assistance formula to encourage producers to increase their crop insurance coverage by making higher levels of coverage more affordable, and increases the level of coverage farmers can purchase. It will ease actual ``production history'' rules so that farmer's insurance coverage is less likely to be artificially depressed by successive years of bad weather. This legislation will reduce the potential for insurance fraud and abuse with strong program compliance provisions. It includes new pilot projects for livestock insurance, specialty crops, and coverage reinsured through futures markets. By passing the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act we can help eliminate some of the uncertainty and instability in farm operations, thus allowing farmers to plan for the long-term. Additionally, this legislation should help Congress and the American taxpayers reduce the need for disaster-assistance packages for our ag producers, and the costs associated with him. If we can help provide farmers with the management tools they need to plan for their future, there will be less of a need to rely on future emergency supplemental appropriations bills when bad times strike. I again thank Senators Roberts and Kerrey and their staffs for their diligence in spearheading crop insurance reform, and acknowledge Senate Agriculture Chairman Lugar for his leadership in getting this bill out of the Agriculture Committee and onto the floor of the Senate for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. We know there is an anticipated projection of a $2.3 trillion surplus in Social Security trust funds over the next 10 years. But we do know that if, in fact, we are to reform Social Security, whatever projected surplus occurs must remain in Social Security. Second, we must reform Social Security in a way that starts to develop personal wealth. Personal retirement accounts would harness the power of private markets and compounding interest, providing a much higher rate of return on each individual's investment. This also gives ownership to each individual, meaning choices and more responsibility for their own economic future. The changes we make to Social Security should not affect current or soon-to-be beneficiaries. We can create a system that still provides a safety net for those who are most vulnerable in society but offers younger workers the opportunity to create wealth and save for their futures. Finally, the Social Security system we now have affects all Americans. It will continue to affect all Americans. The decisions we make today will profoundly affect the lives of all Americans. We must not squander the time we now have to deal with the solvency of Social Security. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the passage of this relevant, important, and timely legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. I ask for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I add my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, Mr. Moynihan. And I tag on to what my friend and colleague, Senator Robb, said regarding the loss to this body and to America as we find Senators Moynihan and Kerrey serving their last year in the Senate. In a narrow, parochial sense, Mr. Kerrey's impending retirement makes me the new senior Senator from Nebraska. However, I would have gladly put that aside for the interest of our senior Senator from Nebraska staying on, as well as Mr. Moynihan, who adds the kind of enlightenment, enhancement, and leadership to an issue that is so critical to this country and to our future. With that, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. I am also a cosponsor of the Senate companion bill, S. 2074, the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act. I think it is appropriate this afternoon to acknowledge our friend and colleague, Senator McCain, who has recently rejoined the Senate after his odyssey throughout America over the last few months. Senator McCain was an early sponsor of repealing the Social Security earnings test and fought hard and provided essential leadership early on. I acknowledge Mr. McCain's early leadership on this issue. We have heard today how this legislation will repeal the Social Security earnings test, which is a disincentive for seniors to work by reducing seniors' Social Security benefits according to the amount of income they earn. We know this legislation will allow seniors between the ages of 65 and 70 to go back to work or continue to work and not worry about being penalized for their productivity or losing their Social Security benefits. As America moves into the new century, it will need more workers in the workforce, not less. Productive capacity is the engine that drives economic growth. That means we must have skilled workers and managers and experienced workers and managers. The passage of this bill helps America with this great challenge. It will help America retain this vital resource of skilled and experienced workers and managers. However, this legislation will not fix Social Security. It will not fix our long-term workforce challenge. The solvency of Social Security is one of the great challenges facing America today. We must reform Social Security or it will not be there for future generations. We know the figures. In 1999, there were 35 million Americans, 13 percent of total population, 65 years of age or older. By the year 2030, there will be 70 million Americans, 20 percent of the total population, who will be 65 years of age or older. In 2010, the first group of the 76 million baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security benefits. And in 2030, the number of workers paying into Social Security per beneficiary, as Senator Kerrey has acknowledged, will drop to 2 from the present 3.3. With this increasing number of beneficiaries and a smaller workforce contributing to the Social Security system, if Congress does not enact reform, Social Security benefit payments will begin to exceed the taxes collected in the year 2014. My colleagues who have spoken before me on the floor this afternoon have pointed out in rather significant clarity the consequences of that. I don't have all the answers to what we must do, but I am sure of one thing--this Congress needs to act sooner rather than later. We must reform Social Security and improve it for future generations.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I strongly support Alan Greenspan's nomination to a fourth term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. While Congress and the President continue to claim credit for our strong economy and projected budget surpluses, one person truly deserves the nation's gratitude for this unprecedented economic expansion--that is Alan Greenspan. His tenure has been a spectacular success. Chairman Greenspan's decisions regarding monetary policy have helped lead us to low unemployment, low interest rates and the longest period of sustained economic growth in the nation's history. Given his remarkable record, it is easy to forget that circumstances have not always been this good for him. Chairman Greenspan has also been tested by periods of adversity during his tenure at the Federal Reserve. Immediately following the October 1987 crash on Wall Street, Chairman Greenspan worked with money center banks to ensure that the brokerage firms continued to have the liquidity necessary to calm both markets and investors. Even in times of adversity, his was a steady hand. Last year, during debate on the financial modernization legislation, Chairman Greenspan served as a crucial advisor to the Members of the Conference Committee. He added indispensable expertise to enacting legislation that will help maintain the competitiveness of our financial services industry in a global economy while ensuring the safety and soundness of our financial markets. Unfortunately, I will not be present for the full Senate vote on the Chairman's nomination. I have the responsibility of leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to Wehrkunde, the annual world security conference in Munich, Germany and to Moscow, where we are to meet with acting Russian President Vladimir Putin. I voted for Chairman Greenspan's nomination during the Banking Committee's markup and would vote for his renomination before the full Senate had I been present. I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, this morning the Senate will consider numerous legislative items that have been cleared for action. Following consideration of those bills, the Senate will resume debate on the final appropriations conference report. Cloture was filed on the conference report yesterday, and it is still hoped that those Senators objecting to an agreement to change the time of the cloture vote to occur at a reasonable hour during today's session will reconsider. However, if no agreement is made, the cloture vote will occur at 1:01 a.m., Saturday morning. Senators may also expect a vote on final passage to occur a few hours after the cloture vote. In addition, the Senate could consider the work incentives conference report prior to adjournment. Mr. President, I thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I would ask the acting minority leader be recognized.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Banking committee yield for a few questions?

Mr. HAGEL. This commonsense approach is consistent with consumer choice and with the customer privacy. We expect the regulators to use their exemptive authority to allow legitimate business practices that safeguard customer financial information to continue to operate and provide customers with greater choices of products and services. section 401

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I inquire of the chairman with respect to the provision in section 502(d) that prohibits the sharing of customer account numbers with non-affiliated third parties for marketing purposes, is it the intent that the third party be able to receive customer account number upon approval by the customer?

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. I rise this morning in strong support of the conference report to accompany S. 900. This landmark legislation before the Senate today is especially important for the future, not only of our financial institutions' competitiveness and our consumer-based economy but for many reasons. I begin my remarks this morning by commending the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Gramm, for his leadership and extraordinary efforts to complete this legislation, as well as our distinguished ranking member, Senator Sarbanes from Maryland. Both they and their staffs and all who worked so hard in accomplishing this rather remarkable feat deserve our thanks. I also recognize, as did my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, the House leadership involved in this effort, as well as our current distinguished Secretary of Treasury, Secretary Summers, and the former Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Rubin, for their leadership. This is truly a historic occasion. In 1933, the United States was mired in the Great Depression. The stock market had collapsed. Populist segments of society blamed that collapse on commercial banks' involvement in securities underwriting. Responding to this sentiment, Senator Carter Glass of Virginia helped push through legislation that created artificial barriers between banking and securities underwriting. Later, amendments included a separation of banking and insurance activities. One year later, in 1934, Senator Glass realized he had gone too far and tried to repeal parts of the Glass-Steagall Act, his own bill. Since 1934, many attempts have been made in Congress to repeal Glass- Steagall. For a variety of reasons, these attempts have failed. This Congress is about to send the President a bill that accomplishes what we have failed to achieve over many years. However, it should be noted that we have also built on these many years of efforts. I am proud to have served on the conference committee for this legislation. This legislation will benefit consumers in two significant ways. First, it will lead to lower costs and higher savings for consumers by allowing competition among banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. In 1995, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that if financial modernization were to reduce costs to consumers by only 1 percent, that would represent a savings of $3 billion a year to consumers. That is real money to real people. These savings would come from increased competition which, among others things, would provide incentives for firms to reduce fees. Second, this competition will strengthen our financial services firms which are integral to the health of the national and international economy. As is true with manufactured goods and commodities, exports of financial services have become increasingly important to the growth of our Nation's economy. This month, the U.S. and its trading partners will meet in Seattle to begin a new round of WTO negotiations. The financial services sector will again be a major topic of discussion during these talks. In fact, our Trade Representative, Ambassador Barshefsky, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee this week and talked in some detail about the financial services sector being top on the agenda for these WTO talks. It is important that Congress help tear down barriers to competition within our own domestic financial markets as we work with our allies and other nations to lower trade barriers in the international financial markets. I will now briefly address how this bill will affect small community banks. Earlier this year, Senator Bayh and I introduced legislation to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The major provisions of that legislation were included in this financial modernization conference report. These provisions will strengthen local community banks that are vital to the economic growth and viability of America's communities. The Federal Home Loan Bank provisions will ensure that in an era of banking megamergers, smaller banks are able to compete effectively and continue to serve their customers' needs. Community banks are finding that, for a variety of reasons, their funding sources are shrinking. This makes it more difficult to fund the loan demands of their communities. During the 1980s in my State of Nebraska, and especially in the case of the Presiding Officer's State of Kansas, all across America many community banks and thrifts closed. As local credit dried up, local economies stagnated. Small businesses, our greatest engines of job growth and innovation, were the first to feel the crunch. The Federal Home Loan Bank provisions in this legislation will strengthen community banks to help avoid a repeat of the 1980s. By broadening access to the Federal Home Loan Bank System, we will help ensure the viability of the community bank and thrift. This legislation will help keep credit flowing to small businesses, farmers, and potential homeowners, and help our local communities prosper as we enter the 21st century. This is especially important to my State of Nebraska where many rural communities depend upon the local bank or thrift for their credit needs. The conferees worked hard to craft legislation that responds to the needs of all financial institutions, including small financial institutions. Another topic important to average Americans is financial privacy-- how customers control the flow of their private financial information. For the first time, this bill sets up a framework for protecting the privacy of customers' financial information. Customers will be able to prohibit the sharing of their financial information with outside parties. Financial institutions would be required to disclose their privacy policies to their customers on a timely basis. If customers do not believe adequate protections exist at their institution, they can take their business elsewhere. Some wanted stronger privacy protections. In my opinion, to have gone further at this time may well have invited the law of unintended consequences. I believe some of the privacy protections that were proposed and rejected during the conference would have been detrimental, not helpful, to financial institutions and their customers. Some of these limitations would have led to fewer products and services being offered to customers. I want to highlight a particular concern. The legislation contains a prohibition on the sharing of customer account numbers or credit card numbers with third parties for the purposes of marketing. This language could be a disadvantage to small banks and insurance agencies that partner with third parties to market new products to customers. Equally important, a customer should have the option to decide whether this information can be or should be shared. This legislation should not take away that choice. The report language clarifies that when regulations are written to implement S. 900, they may exempt the sharing of encrypted credit card numbers and account numbers only where the financial institution has received express permission from the customer. As vice chairman of the Banking Committee's Financial Institution Subcommittee, I intend to conduct oversight during the rulemaking process implementing this legislation. The regulators should exercise this exemption authority. The conferees did not intend to hurt legitimate business practices that safeguard customer information. I end by again expressing my strong support for this conference report. This legislation, a well-balanced approach to financial services modernization, is long overdue. It does not pick winners and losers. It provides important consumer protections while expanding the choices available to consumers. The conferees worked hard to craft a bill that will guide our financial services industries into the next century. This is a bill of which we can be proud, and I again congratulate Chairman Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, and all who provided leadership and hard work to accomplish this rather significant effort. I urge my colleagues to support the financial modernization conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Yes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am grateful for the chairman's generous comments. After the Texas A&M and Nebraska game on Saturday, I may never hear another generous comment from him.