Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1415, the tobacco legislation, with several amendments pending. It is hoped that those amendments can be dealt with in a timely fashion so that remaining amendments to the tobacco bill can be offered and debated. The Senate will recess today from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. Under a previous order, at 4 p.m., the Senate will begin 2 hours of debate equally divided on the motion to proceed to the nuclear waste bill. At 6 p.m., the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the nuclear waste bill. Further votes could occur following the cloture vote on amendments to the tobacco legislation or any other executive or legislative items cleared for action. As a reminder, the majority leader has announced there will be no session of the Senate tomorrow, Wednesday, June 3, in honor of the passing of our former colleague and friend, Barry Goldwater. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I will be very happy to yield when I finish. I thank the Senator. The Federal Government, no government, can tax or regulate young people's behavior. That is silly. That is complete folly. Come on. How many parents do we have in this body? How many people in this body have dealt with young people? I suppose everybody in this body remembers when they were 16, 17, 18--and you believe that the Government is going to regulate behavior and change behavior? We are going to make everybody's life-style healthier? That is another dynamic that has not been debated in this. Ignoring other problems--isn't it interesting that the real problems in this country for young people, far more severe and far more immediate, are with illegal drugs and underage alcohol use, but, yet, we are not talking too much about those issues today. Why aren't we? Because we are losing the illegal drug debate and war. More young people today are on illegal drugs than before. It is a tougher issue. It is everybody's concern. But we beat our breasts down here and say, aren't we doing something great because we are going to take care of underage cigarette smoking. By the way, you can look at numbers and polls on this. I know they all have them, and I have one done by Citizens for a Sound Economy, May 13 to 15 of this year, asking 1,200 Americans, as parents, what their biggest concern for teenagers is. No. 1, illegal drug use, 39 percent; gangs, 16 percent; alcohol, 9 percent; tobacco use, 3 percent. Again, does this diminish the importance of this issue? No, of course not, but let's have some perspective in this debate. And there are other problems that young people face. We have numbers from polls and from very conclusive studies that show what I am talking about. Let me conclude, Mr. President, with a couple of final observations. There is an interesting thread of arrogance that has run through this debate: Government is smarter; we can tell you what to do; you really don't understand the seriousness of tobacco use; you are not smart enough to sort it out yourself; but you see, we are in the Congress, we will tell you when something is dangerous and when it isn't; you can't read; you don't understand, I am sorry. We can have that kind of society. We can have that kind of a world. Some countries do. But if that is what you opt for, you will opt for also giving up some personal freedom, some personal responsibility, and it might be a better world that way. But that is another part of this debate we haven't heard enough about, and it should be part of it. As I said in my earlier remarks, all my colleagues mean well. They are well motivated, they want to make the world better, they want to do the right thing. There is no question about that. But I hope they will think for a few moments about some of the issues I have raised as we step back for a moment and try to put in perspective what we are doing. Are we really making the world better and accomplishing what we want to accomplish, focusing on teenage smoking, underage smoking, which, by the way, there are now laws on the books to deal with? Are we making it better by putting hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes on our people, building a bigger Government and more programs and more regulations, and then on top of that, having to deal with the unintended consequences of our action that will affect culture and it will affect society? Those are all part of the total debate, Mr. President, that should be brought into focus. I will vote against this bill, because I think it is not the right way to deal with some very serious problems. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reflect on some of the dynamics of the debate on the tobacco bill. I think it is important we as a body step back and focus on some of the various dynamics and the consequences of what we may or may not do as this debate goes forward. And it should go forward. Nobody disagrees with trying to reduce teen smoking. That is not an issue. We are all here to try to do the right thing. The focus on teen smoking, after all, was the core issue that really began this debate more than just a year ago. I do not question the motives of my colleagues on either side of this debate. My colleagues on both sides of this debate are trying to do the right thing, trying to focus on making this a better world. I should also say, in the interest of full disclosure, I do not smoke, never have smoked, don't care about smoking. I think it is an unhealthy, bad habit, but at the same time I think we owe this country a good, honest debate about the issue from many of the dynamics, and certainly the constitutional dynamic of what we are about to do or may do is important. I also think it is important for us to look at some of the societal and cultural consequences of this debate and of what action we may bring in the Senate over the tobacco bill, because if we do do something, it will have an impact on society, and it will have an impact far beyond just raising taxes and making government bigger, with more unaccountable regulations. This will have a very significant impact on our society. I do fear, as I believe many of my colleagues fear, the great law of unintended consequences when we do not think things through very clearly. As we frame the debate, as we frame this issue, I fear that we are not including all that needs to be framed and debated here. As I have listened to and observed a number of presentations, all using statistics, information, and numbers, we pull them from everywhere. But the fact is, we do not have good, accurate information on this issue. I look at the number that is being used by almost everyone here, that this bill would reduce teen smoking by 60 percent. But where do we get the number? Where are we pulling our assumptions from? I have here a copy of the New York Times story yesterday headlined ``Politics of Youth Smoking Fueled by Unproven Data.'' It has some interesting points. This New York Times article says, for example: But with the Senate having begun debate on Monday on tobacco legislation, many experts warn that such predictions are little more than wild estimates that are raising what may be unreasonable expectations for change in rates of youth smoking. Another point in this article I think is pretty important. Politicians and policy makers have tossed out dozens of estimates about the impact of various strategies on youth smoking, figures that turn out to be based on projections rather than fact. ``I think this whole business of trying to prevent kids from smoking being the impetus behind legislation is great politics,'' said Richard Kluger, the author of ``Ashes to Ashes,'' a history of the United States' battle over smoking and health. He goes on to say: It is nonsense in terms of anything you can put numbers next to. This certainly does not minimize the seriousness of what we are about. It does not minimize the seriousness of teenage smoking, again, if that is the focus, if that is the reason in fact we are debating this. Other assumptions that get thrown into this as well are somewhat faulty. We know that we are today debating a massive tax and regulatory bill, and we tend to glide over that. I will give you some statistics that actually are accurate from my State, from Illinois, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, four States that have raised--raised--cigarette taxes in recent years, and they have all seen teen smoking increase. In 1993, Nebraska raised the cigarette tax to 34 cents. The number of Nebraska teenagers who smoke increased by about 20 percent over a 3-year period. Now, some might say, well, 34 cents is not enough; you have to raise it to where it really hurts. But I think we can understand and get some sense of focus that increasing taxes at least predominantly as the great dissuader of teenage smoking is far, far from being proven. USA Today had a very interesting front-page survey a couple of weeks ago in its newspaper, and it reported such things as, ``Only 14 percent of teenage smokers said higher cigarette prices would make them quit.'' The same survey in the USA Today said only 12 percent believed requiring a photo ID to prove they are adults when buying cigarettes would make them quit. Another dynamic of this debate, which again seems to get very little attention, is, How would this change the power of the Federal Government? Would it increase unaccountable, essential unaccountable Federal regulation through the Food and Drug administration? Yes. Considerably. It would give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate as yet still a legal product. Now, if this body really is as concerned about tobacco as we are representing, why don't we have the guts to just step up and ban tobacco as an illegal drug? Why don't we do that? Why don't we be honest enough about this issue to bring it down here and debate it and say we are going to ban tobacco and say it is an illegal drug? Or let's nationalize the tobacco companies? The point is that we are not being totally honest with what we are doing. Where will the money go? The numbers float around. Is it a $565 billion bill? Is it a $750 billion tax bill? Where is this? We do know it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We do know that. Where is this money going to go? Where is the money going to go? Because we also know that all that money, whether it is $500 billion, $600 billion, $800 billion, can't possibly be used for teen smoking programs. So, does that give us some impetus to tax more and to do more and, therefore, find, at the end of the rainbow, a pot of gold? More Government programs, more Government, more bureaucracy, more regulation. I think that is an important dynamic of this debate. Higher taxes, obviously. Nobody has yet denied that. Nobody has denied, yet, that we are, in fact, increasing taxes. Not just increasing taxes but we are really increasing taxes by a new dimension here. Where does that money go? For example, we do know somewhere, in all these bills out there, there is a figure we can get pretty close to focusing on, that, over the next 8 years, at a minimum, we would be raising about $130 billion in new taxes. There are some constitutional issues, believe it or not. Again, let's face the facts here. What we are doing here, we are expropriating a legal industry. We are expropriating a legal industry for the first time in the history of America. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I don't smoke. No one can come to the floor of the Senate and defend the tobacco companies' conduct, their behavior. It has been outrageous. That is not what this debate is about. Let's not get ensnared in the underbrush of that debate. Let's be careful here how we frame the debate. Nobody that I know of is on the floor of the Senate defending the tobacco companies. That is not the issue. We are defending some constitutional rights here. We are defending the honesty of how we are getting at this issue. Again, if we wish to take tobacco and criminalize it, that is certainly an option. If we go forward and do what some in this body intend to do, and want to do, essentially expropriating a legal industry, then what kind of precedent does that set? I think, first of all, constitutionally it would be out, but what kind of precedent does that set? Who is next? Caffeine? Diesel fuel? Who is next? That is another consequence, another dynamic of this debate on which we should reflect. Just one example of a constitutional question is--I think we all understand it does raise some very serious constitutional questions. For example, the Federal district court in North Carolina ruled that the FDA cannot restrict advertising and promotion of tobacco products. We have a legal system for this. We have a legal system that works pretty well in this country. It has worked over 200 years. Again, this is not a matter of defending the tobacco companies. That is not what this is about. This debate, parts of it, remind me of other debates we have been engaged in about the environment or religious persecution. I do not know one Senator who wants dirty air and dirty water and a dirty environment. Nor do I know one Senator who supports religious persecution. It is always a matter of how you improve it, not either/or. This is a good example of that kind of debate. Black market--my friend from Texas talked a little bit about that an hour ago. It is a very, very real concern, a very real issue. For example, after increasing its cigarette taxes in the late 1980s, Canada saw a huge increase in the black market for cigarettes. By 1994, one- third of the Canadian cigarette market was contraband. Is that where we are headed here? We need to talk about that. It isn't just Canada. How about Sweden? Recently, Sweden lowered its cigarette tax by 27 percent to reduce smuggling from Denmark. England estimates it loses over $1 billion in tax revenue every year because of smuggled cigarettes. My friend from Montana, Senator Burns, tells me the biggest export in Montana is--wheat? No, it is contraband going to Canada, illegal cigarettes--another dimension of this that we need to be very seriously looking at, the consequences of a well-intentioned action. The State of Washington estimates that 27 percent of its cigarette market is now contraband--that is now. The State legislature moved the enforcement power of the cigarette tax from the State revenue department to its liquor control board, ``whose agents carry guns and have complete police powers.'' Is that a consequence we want from this? Personal responsibility--my goodness, my goodness. The very foundation of this Nation is rooted in personal responsibility. Where has been the debate on this issue about personal responsibility? There was a lot of debate about blaming everybody for one's actions. It is the Army's fault. It is the Army's fault that I started smoking. It is the Government's fault. It is the tobacco company's fault. It is everybody's fault, except mine. What does that say to our young people? Why have I not heard any connecting issue or debate in all the debate that has raged on so far about personal responsibility--consequences for one's actions? Our young people need to understand that actions have consequences. They need to understand that. Yes, we need to help them. Yes, we need to protect them. But that should be part of the debate, talking about personal responsibility--not that it is everybody else's fault. That is a dynamic of this.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the American Competitiveness Act, of which I am a cosponsor. The American Competitiveness Act is important to the American economy and to our Nation's high standing in a global economy. It will also have a positive and direct impact on promoting job creation and economic growth in Nebraska. Mr. President, as the 21st Century quickly approaches, American companies, businesses and universities increasingly find themselves in a fiercely competitive global economy. Thus far, the United States has been able to succeed and benefit overwhelmingly from this increased ``globalization.'' However, our continued economic growth is being threatened by a shortage of highly skilled and internationally experienced workers, While companies around the U.S. have invested billions of dollars in educating and training employees, demand for qualified people continues to grow faster than the supply of available workers. This is particularly true in the area of information technology. The shortage of workers with technical or computer-related skills is a real concern to Nebraska. My colleagues may not realize that Nebraska currently has an unemployment rate of 1.6%, which is the lowest rate in the country. While this is very good news, it also presents a challenge for many of Nebraska's employers. Employers in Nebraska have told me over and over again that the state is unable to meet their increased demand for labor, particularly high- skilled labor. In fact, the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce estimates there are currently 1,500 to 2,000 job openings in the field of information technology in the Omaha area alone. While the Chamber, other business community leaders, and the Nebraska state government, have been actively recruiting workers from within the State, across the country and around the world, they have not been able to produce enough skilled workers to keep pace with job growth. The United States Senate can take an important step toward addressing this problem by passing the American Competitiveness Act. This legislation will immediately help America's companies and universities by raising the current ceiling on the number of foreign-born professionals we allow to work in the United States under the H-1B visa program. These temporary visas are used to attract the best and brightest minds from around the world to U.S. companies and universities, which helps them to compete in global markets. We must also address our Nation's long term employment challenges by preparing more American students for the high technology, global workforce of tomorrow. Not enough of our students are being prepared, or preparing themselves, to excel in an increasingly high-tech economy. The American Competitiveness Act takes steps to correct this situation by creating 20,000 scholarships annually for low-income American students to study math, engineering, and computer science. It also authorizes $10 million a year to train unemployed U.S. workers for jobs in the information technology industry. I strongly urge my colleagues to support Senator Abraham's bill, which will keep American companies in this country, create and save American jobs and contribute to the growth of the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it will help ensure that America remains a great, industrious and rich nation both culturally and economically. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me by the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to reflect on the business at hand today; that is, our Department of Defense authorization bill. Three hours ago, I had the privilege of joining a couple of my colleagues at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier during a very somber, serious ceremony to exhume the remains of the unknown Vietnam veteran from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. If you have followed this, as all of our colleagues in this body and most of America have, you are aware that through sophisticated, primarily DNA testing--and you, Mr. President, of all people understand this very well--we now are going to be able to identify almost all remains from the Vietnam war. I begin my remarks this afternoon with that reflection because what we are about here today is serious business. It is about the business of national defense--defending America's interests in the world. It is costly, it is serious, and at some times it is devastating. It is devastating for the families who lose loved ones in crisis, in war, in conflict. But when I say it is costly, Mr. President, I mean costly. As one who has spent some time in the Armed Forces, who is somewhat familiar with the sacrifices that we ask of our men and women and their families, I am as concerned today about the defense capabilities of our armed services as I have been since the late 1970s. Not that our men and women, our warriors, are not up to the task, but I fear what we are doing to our men and women who have committed their lives to the defense of freedom and the defense of this Nation is that we are not providing them, we are not making to them, the kind of commitment in the resources they need to do their job. We are asking--and this has been the case over the last 10 years--our Armed Forces to do more with less--more deployments, longer deployments. And as you look at our Defense Department budgets, this fiscal year 1999 budget represents the 14th consecutive year of decline in defense spending. In real dollars, I think the American public should know that this budget represents $3 billion less than current levels and about a 40-percent drop from the spending levels of the mid to late 1980s. I compliment my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for dealing with a difficult issue. I especially compliment Chairman Thurmond, who, I understand, will lead this authorization bill fight for the last time. His commitment to his country is not only exemplary but it is truly unmatched in this Chamber. There is no one who understands this business better than Chairman Thurmond and who understands what I am talking about today. I will jump to the conclusion of my remarks by saying this. It is time the Congress of the United States be direct and honest with the American public and say what needs to be said, and that is, we need to increase spending for our Defense Department. We need to increase spending. Any measurement you take of where we are in inflation- adjusted dollars, this year's defense budget represents the smallest, in real dollars, the smallest Defense Department budget since the beginning of the Korean war. We have the smallest military in nearly 50 years. I am astounded that the President of the United States comes before the Congress and the American public and says we have the smallest Government ever. First of all, we don't have the smallest Government ever; a $1.7 trillion Government is rather significant. But he is half right; we have a military that we have continued to hollow out over the last 10 years. We will pay a severe price for what we are doing to our Armed Forces capability. About 3 percent of our gross domestic product today, less than half of what we had in the 1980's, goes to defense spending. By any measurement you take of this issue of research, acquisition, and deployment of new weapons systems, we are relying on aging and older equipment. I had an interesting conversation over the weekend at the airport in Omaha, NE. It was with two DOD auditors who have been with the DOD, auditing systems equipment, for almost 30 years. Each of them told me independently that they have never seen such a situation since the late 1970s. When they are auditing military orders to cannibalize equipment in order to get spare parts off of our jets, off of our ships, off of our military vehicles, something is drastically wrong when that happens, drastically wrong. I hear very interesting commentary from the Secretary of Defense, whom I admire greatly, about, if you would just close more bases, that would give us more money and free up the resources. Well, that may do some of that, but what is interesting is that it does not give you any more manpower, and in fact in the President's budget this year he calls for cutting 36,000 uniformed men and women from military service, 12,000 Reserve men and women. How can we, in fact, focus the resources and make the commitment we need to make to our men and women who defend this Nation? Let's remember something. National defense is the guarantor of our foreign policy. Without a national defense, we have no foreign policy. Yet we continue to ask our men and women in uniform to do more. Since 1990, our Armed Forces have been used in 36 foreign missions compared to 22 from 1980 to 1989. The Army decreased its manpower by 36 percent while increasing the workload by over 300 percent. Since 1989, the Air Force personnel have been cut by one-third yet the number of missions has quadrupled. From October to January of last year, we lost over 600 Air Force jet pilots. The Army estimated in 1997 that its deployable units spent 180 to 190 days away from home each year. This was before-- before--the recent escalation of our forces in the Persian Gulf. The Army Chief of Staff, General Dennis Reimer recently said, ``Our requirements exceed our people to man those requirements.'' Let's look at the quality of life. Let's ask what we are doing for the men and women we are asking to commit, in some cases, their lives; what we are asking them to do and what we are giving in return--not only the increasing rate of deployment, longer deployment, cutting their time with families, impacting their quality of life, but what about housing? It is disgraceful. Last year, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, said that, ``* * * we have family housing that we ought not be asking our folks to live in.'' In the Air Force alone there are over 41,000 families on waiting lists for decent housing. In my State of Nebraska, at Offutt Air Force Base alone, there is a terrible need for decent housing. When I say decent housing, I don't mean villas, I mean running water, hot water, plaster not falling from the ceiling, windows not broken out. These people in our Armed Forces are not asking for palaces. How do we expect the men and women in our Armed Forces, as we send them, deploy them all over the world, to concentrate on the serious business before them if they are worried about their families at home because we in the Congress and the President are not paying attention to focusing on the resources that our men and women need? Military pay lags 13 percent behind that of the private sector. By the Department of Defense's own estimates, more than 23,000 men and women in uniform, and their families, are eligible for food stamps. What does this do to retention, recruitment and readiness? That is the essence of a capable military. The Army has fallen short of its recruitment goal for the first time since 1979--the first time. And the percentage of recruits in the United States Army with high school diplomas is declining. Since Desert Storm, the percentage of Navy petty officers who say they intend to make the Navy a career has dropped by 10 percent. Look at the world today. Is it getting safer? Need we really look beyond what happened earlier this week with the atomic testing done by India? We have major troop deployments around the world today: 37,000 troops in South Korea, major deployments of forces in the Middle East, Japan, Europe, Bosnia. And what about the flash points that are there today, the real possibilities of conflict south of Bosnia, Kosovo? What is yet to happen on the subcontinent of Asia with Pakistan and India? I will be in the Caspian Sea region in 2 weeks--a tinderbox. Are we prepared? The end of the cold war has reduced some threat. But now is no time to not only withdraw American leadership but to withdraw the commitment to our Armed Forces. Our armed services are the capability that we are relying on to protect our national interests, our role in the world, to guarantee our foreign policy. That will not be done by hollowing out our military. Today we see a world that is shifting globally in its geopolitical, economic, and military power structures. We cannot allow America to become weaker, or withdraw from that world. Now is not the time. Now is the time for America to project its leadership and help form and help craft and help incentivize and lead the world to more freedom. You cannot accomplish that with an unprepared military. I looked at the President's budget again this week, his fiscal year 1999 budget. The President proposes $123 billion in new domestic programs, but again proposes to cut our military budget. Surely now-- surely America's national interests and our national security has some priority in this budget. As we step back for a moment and survey the world as it is--not as we hope or wish it will be, but as it is--if we in fact are, and I believe we are, capable of taking advantage of the tremendous opportunities and hopes and the series of historical consequences and events that have come together in a rather magnificent way to make the world better, it is going to require American leadership. Not that we need to shoulder all the burden--of course not. But part of that American leadership is a national security worthy of who we are and a commitment to the people that we ask daily to defend our Nation--a commitment to give them the resources they need. I would say finally, Mr. President, to me a part of that commitment is not to underfund our military but, in fact, it is to start rebuilding our military. I hope as this issue develops and debate develops, that the issue we are about today will extend far beyond the narrowness of the focus that we debate today, but interconnects with the future and our leadership, and much of that future resides at the core of our national defense capabilities. I thank my colleagues who serve on the Armed Services Committee for their efforts, their leadership, and their lives that many have devoted to making this a more secure world and helping our military. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Conference Agreement on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. This measure will solidify the financial foundation for crop insurance and agriculture research well into the next century. Agriculture research and crop insurance are vital to America's farming and ranching livelihood. Research, crop insurance, regulatory relief, and expanded markets play a vital role in moving federal farm policy away from government intrusion and toward a free market through the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Farmers and ranchers now have greater flexibility in their crop and livestock production efforts. Crop insurance and research efforts are both tools that will help farm producers become more competitive as they move toward a greater reliance on the free market and less upon the federal treasury. No country in the world can match America's efficiency in agricultural production. Not only is this a result of American ingenuity and hard work, it's also the result of our investment in cutting edge research. Our research efforts have led to more efficient production, better products, new uses for our products--all of which have led to new markets where we can sell our products. S. 1150 provides 600 million dollars for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. The global demand for our agricultural goods will continue to grow as the world's population increases and as more nations achieve higher standards of living, resulting in a demand for better diets. Research allows American agriculture to meet the world's demand for food and fiber. Under S. 1150, research dollars will go toward new and alternative uses of agricultural commodities and products, agricultural biotechnology, agricultural genome research, natural resource management, precision agriculture, food safety, and food technology and human nutrition. These dollars will help our agriculture research facilities, such as the University of Nebraska, to continue to lead the world in crop and livestock production sciences. Expanded markets and increased trade are a clear byproduct of agricultural research. Research will lead American agriculture into the next century and keep American farmers and ranchers at the forefront of global food and fiber production. Research, global food production, global trade and farming profits are all connected. Crop insurance is also vital to the long-term health of American agriculture. Farming and ranching involves risk. That's a fact of life in American agriculture. Crop insurance provides a very important management tool for our agricultural producers to withstand fluctuations in the market and changes in weather and production conditions. For example, in recent years, severe weather conditions have forced some Nebraska farmers to face the loss of their crops and livestock. Protecting farmers and the agri-businesses that depend on them from suffering major losses is what crop insurance alternatives do for America's producers. Comprehensive crop insurance plans will minimize losses for many agricultural producers so that the economic damage from diminished crop yields is not overwhelming for our rural towns and communities. This conference report provides 500 million dollars to partially fund crop insurance delivery expenses. Research and crop insurance are interconnected with agricultural production and basic farm and ranch income. Research keeps American agriculture on the leading edge of production technology. Crop insurance minimizes the many risks involved with producing food and fiber for the world's growing population. I strongly support S. 1150 and urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the time has arrived to put some accountability and common sense into one of the most out of control federal agencies in the Federal Government, the Internal Revenue Service. Over the past nine months we have heard volumes of testimony regarding the many problems associated with the Internal Revenue Service--lack of leadership, an unresponsive agency and abusive employees. But the most important issue that we must not forget is accountability. No one is being held accountable at the IRS. This must change. If federal agencies and their employees are not held accountable for their actions, we have lost control. The American people send billions and billions of dollars of their hard-earned money to Washington, D.C. each year in taxes, to fund a government that most Americans see as too big, too intrusive, and unaccountable. Congress is taking a good first step at bringing accountability to the IRS through the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. This legislation would create an IRS oversight board to oversee the IRS in every aspect of its administration of the tax laws. The Act also replaces the many levels of bureaucracy at the IRS--district offices, regional offices and national office--with offices that are trained to handle groups with specific concerns--individual taxpayers, small business, large business and tax-exempt entities. The Act also creates and enhances many taxpayer rights and protections. The burden of proof in court proceedings would be reversed from the taxpayer to the IRS when the taxpayer produces credible evidence that is relevant. The Act extends the attorney-client privilege to accountants and other tax practitioners. Finally, the Act overhauls the ``innocent-spouse'' relief provision. A spouse would be allowed to limit their tax liability for a joint-return to the spouse's separate liability attributable to the spouse's income. These are just a few examples of where and how the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act will bring the IRS back to reality. If there is accountability there is control.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the ratification of NATO expansion. I have had the good fortune, over almost the last year and a half that I have been in the U.S. Senate, to serve on the Committee on Foreign Relations. That has given me a unique opportunity to examine the NATO expansion protocol. I attended, start to finish, each of the eight full hearings we had in the Foreign Relations Committee on this issue. I also was appointed by the Senate Majority Leader to serve on the NATO Observer Group Task Force. I attended almost all of the 17 meetings that our distinguished colleagues from Delaware, Senator Biden and Senator Roth, held. That does not give me a particularly unique perspective on this issue, but it gives me some grounding on understanding the complications of NATO expansion. As I have listened to the debate the last 2 days, and in previous weeks when this Chamber debated this issue, and during committee hearings, I have come to the conclusion that, yes, a number of the questions and points raised by my colleagues are not only relevant but are important and they should be fully aired and fully debated. It is based on those observations that I have made, as I have listened to this debate, that I wish to offer some of the following points. Aside from the obvious defense purpose of the expansion of NATO, there are other issues involved. The obvious defense purpose of expanding NATO is to help assure stability and security in Europe, all of Europe. There has been some debate on the floor about this issue, this fourth expansion--and, by the way, a not unprecedented expansion. We have expanded NATO three other times, to include West Germany, Greece, Turkey, and the third expansion was Spain and Portugal. So this would be not an unprecedented action we take, that we include three new countries. But I find interesting that there has been some reference made to ``we would split Europe.'' I say just the opposite, just the opposite. We would, in fact, do much to unify Europe. Why would that be? That would be because stability, security, economic development, development of democracy and market economies, would extend across the continent of Europe and no longer would there be the Iron Curtain that fell at the end of World War II. NATO expansion would help assure that. I also find the argument interesting from the perspective of--I thought, when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, that meant something. It was beyond symbolism. It was a witness to history that authoritarian, totalitarian government does not work, under any name--Nazism, communism, it doesn't work. Here we are, almost 10 years after the fall of communism, with the Berlin Wall, talking about, ``Well, I don't know, should we do this? We might offend our Russian friends.'' Certainly any important decision must factor in every dynamic in the debate and every dynamic of our national security interest--relationships, future relationships, and in this case it certainly does factor in our relationship with Russia. But, my goodness, why did we fight, for 40 years, a cold war? And we won it. Only 10 years later, to some extent, to be held hostage to what the Russians want? You see, I don't see an awful lot of sense in that. Yes, it is important to understand the Russians. Yes, it is important to engage the Russians. But not allow Russia, or any other nation to dominate the final analysis and decisions of our Nation's security interests, nor all of the collective security interests of Europe. There is another consequence of this that has not yet been fully developed and that is we would be helping provide role models for Central and Eastern Europe by these three new nations, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, coming into NATO, complying with--not as a handout, not as a gesture, but complying with all of the requirements established 50 years ago to belong to NATO. We just didn't invent these. They didn't just ``happen.'' They are the same requirements for Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary as we had for the previous three expansions of NATO. Other nations of Central and Eastern Europe can look to these three nations as role models, for help, and not just in the national security dynamic. Let's face it, I have heard, also, a lot of talk about the European Union--why not allow these nations to be brought into the European Union first? Mr. President, you cannot separate economics here. You can't separate economic stability from military stability. They are integrally entwined. There is no question the world is a global community underpinned by a global economy. Of course--of course--these nations will benefit economically. And that will invent and give opportunities to other countries, and more opportunities as well. Now, this is not just--not just--a national defense issue and a security issue for the United States. This is an investment for the United States. This is an investment because it is connected. And if we invest, yes, some money--my goodness, isn't that something? We would actually have to pay some money, not wild exaggerations that we have heard on the floor of the Senate, but some real dollars to invest, to expand the security and stability umbrella of NATO eastward. It is an investment for us for a couple of reasons. One, it will help assure this country will not be sending its children and its grandchildren to fight another World War or a war in Europe. Democracies do not attack other democracies. Democracies do not go to war. So it is an investment in national security and peace for us. It is also an economic investment. As these nations that had been under the yoke of Communist dictatorship for almost 50 years are now in a position to develop democracy and flourish economically as they develop their democratic governments and their freedoms, they are as well developing market economies. What does that mean to us? That means markets, that means some stability, that means connection. I also have found some of my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, comment about, ``Well, but this President, this administration, wants to take NATO expansion beyond the boundaries of what the mission is of NATO.'' I remind my colleagues on this side of the aisle, my Republican colleagues, who might have some concern about this present administration, 10 Republican and Democratic administrations have presided over America's involvement in NATO, 10 administrations, Republican and Democratic. This debate should not get confused with the underbrush of detail or who is in the White House today. This debate is about the future and how we are preparing for the future as we go into the next century--not about Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen. They are players on the scene for a very brief time, just like 10 administrations have been on the scene, essentially for a brief time. Missions and organizations change, believe it or not. Missions and organizations change. Times change. Dynamics change, challenges change, circumstances and situations change. To my colleagues who say, ``Well, prove to me that NATO is going to be important. Prove to me every dollar that's going in. Prove to me we need NATO,'' well, as brilliant as many of my colleagues are, no one can give them that answer, you see, because no one can predict the future. But that is what NATO expansion is about. That is why we established NATO 50 years ago, because the future was uncertain and was unstable. If we did not have NATO today, we would have to invent NATO. To those of my colleagues who say, ``Well, why rush? We're rushing into this. What's so important about doing this now? This year? Next year?'' I say, I suppose you could have asked that question after World War II--there was relative peace in Europe after World War II--``What's the rush?'' And for every one of the previous three expansions into NATO, you could have said, ``Why West Germany now? Let's wait until about 1980,'' or for any of the other nations. But, my goodness, doesn't it make a little more sense to develop strong, bold, dynamic, futuristic policy now--now--when we can think clearly, when we can understand the dynamics of the issues rather than, well, let us wait for some country to be invaded and then we will show them what we are going to do? Come on, it does not work that way. It does not work that way. Let us not squander the time we now have to plan as best we can for a surely uncertain future. Another dynamic that gets lost in this debate, Mr. President, is another certainty--the diffusion of power in the world. The face of this globe will not look the same in 25 years. It will not look the same because the geopolitical, economic and military power structures of the globe of this 5.2 billion-people world are changing. Like life changes, everything changes. It is in the best interest of this country and the world for us to lead as best we can to prepare for those new challenges and to prepare for that new diffusion of power, as it will surely come, as it is coming today. Yes; yes, Europe is only one part of that. But look at the numbers--a rather significant part. Any measurement you take of the importance of Europe, any measurement you take--people, gross domestic product, exports--and do we really believe Europe still and will still be untouched into the next century with no war, no conflict? Who would have predicted Bosnia? Who would have foreseen that in 1990 and 1991? Kosovo. These are deadly, real examples of how fast things can come unraveled even in--even in--Europe. Another question that is asked, and appropriately so, is our force strength. It is a very good question. Over the last 10 years, we have been asking our military to do more with less--more deployments, longer deployments. We now have a force structure, in real dollar terms--in real budget terms--that is down as low as any time since 1940. Less than 3 percent of our gross domestic product goes for our national defense. That is below dangerously low. And if we in fact are going to ask our military to take on new responsibilities, like NATO expansion, which I support, and NATO and the Persian Gulf, and a hundred other nations where we have troops, then we are going to have to pay attention to our military. And we have not been doing that. Another debate for another time surely, Mr. President, but one that is appropriately talked about in this debate and asked because if we are going to ask our military to do more, we are going to have to pay attention to the budget and to rebuilding our military. We are soon becoming a hollow military, and that is in any measurement you wish to take. In the President's own budget for fiscal year 1999, he cuts another 25,000 uniformed men and women from the services. We cannot have it both ways. But, as I say, part of the debate should be part of that debate, but that debate should come at a different time. I conclude my remarks, Mr. President, by saying that we have a unique opportunity, as the most dominant nation on Earth, at a most unique time in history--not a time seen probably since Rome during the Roman Empire--when one nation has so thoroughly dominated this globe. There is a bigger question for this country and a bigger challenge that will require a bigger debate than NATO. But it is part of the debate. And that is, yes, a great nation is required to do great things, to take on great burdens, and to give great leadership. It is an awesome responsibility the United States has. And our challenge, our debate is, do we wish in fact to go into the next century as that dominant great nation and carry that great burden of leadership? This is part of that debate. We have an opportunity, unique in history, to help build strong democracies, help to build structures that will give more people more freedom than the history has ever known, more market economies, better standards of living, better health, less conflict, less war. That is why NATO expansion is important. It is not the only issue, maybe not the most important issue, but surely it fits into the grander debate that we will have. New alliances are being formed, new alliances will continue to be formed in the next century. We want to be part of that. As we rely on more nations and more relationships and more alliances, in the end that will mean less burden for us, less burden for us because we are helping develop strong democratic nations with resources, with economies that can defend themselves. That is in our interest. In the end, it is in the world's interest. That, more than any other reason, is why I strongly support NATO expansion. I ask that my colleagues in this body who are still undecided, for legitimate reasons, listen to this debate closely, because in the end this debate is about our future and what is in our best interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. No, I didn't say it is for all of Europe. I said we would have a Europe, as we expand NATO eastward, that gives Europe an opportunity from east to west, all of Europe, to be democratic, opportunity to develop market economies, the potential to be a free continent, and that NATO could help do that.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to express my strong support for the Parent and Student Savings Account Act, or PASS Act, of which I am a cosponsor. I have listened over the last few weeks to the debate on this issue. It is about things bigger than just the Coverdell bill. It is about the philosophy of education in America. I am constantly astonished that the Coverdell bill has so exercised so many of my colleagues. I question why this is such a big deal. The Coverdell bill is part of an overall philosophy about education. Yes; our future is our children, and our children's future is education. But this Coverdell bill should be part of the national debate about where we take education into the next century--this new, bold, dynamic competitive new century. For the first time we will ask our young people to compete in a new, competitive, international world. After all, Mr. President, what is education about? What is education really about? It is not about debating amendments on the floor of the Senate. It should not be about whose money it is, or whose money it is not, nor about bureaucracy. It should be about our young people. It should be about educating our young people so that they are prepared to compete in this brave new world--this world full of immense opportunities. But there will not be opportunities if we do not prepare our young people to negotiate this new world. Education is about something else. It is not just about science and math, and reading and writing--yes, that is important--and economics, history, and geography. It is also about developing young people so that we are producing happy, productive citizens--happy, productive citizens so that they, too, might contribute to our society and to our culture. But ignorance is the great enemy to productivity and to secure, happy lives. It is all connected. It is all connected. If in fact you believe, as I do, that the Federal Government does not belong in education--in fact, if we will roll this back 200 years, you show me in the Constitution of the United States, or show me anywhere, where the Federal Government has the responsibility to educate our young people. It does not. It can't. We are overloading our circuits. We are overloading our system. We are asking the Government to do things that Government can't possibly do. Therefore, as we have done over the last 30 years, there has been a breakdown in confidence in our country and in government at every level, but especially Government at the Federal level. What do we do about it? Let's step back for a moment and pause and be unemotional and sort this out. We sort it out this way. Who has the most to win or lose when it comes to education of our young people? Of course, the parents are the ones who care the most, and who should care the most. The parents are the connecting rod for our children in every facet and every aspect of our children's lives. Who also cares about our students and about their education? Teachers. Revelation-- teachers--parents and teachers. So we have a good combination going on here--not the Government, not the Federal Government, not the Department of Education, not the President, not Senator Hagel nor Senator Coverdell. Education belongs at the local level because that is where the issue is. This is not about books and textbooks, numbers, frogs, dissecting, and biology class. It is about people. It is about young people. It is about their lives. It is about the strains and stresses of young people. We have all been through it. What is wrong with examining in some detail, as we are doing, the Coverdell bill? What is wrong with actually allowing parents to put aside after-tax income? By the way, after-tax income is not costing the public schools a dime. It is not costing the public schools a dime. We are allowing the parents who have the most to win or lose by the education of their children an opportunity to take their own money that they work for after they have paid their taxes and put it into a savings account. It is the same thing that we did last year. My goodness, President Clinton had a Rose Garden ceremony. He took great credit for allowing our parents to have education savings accounts to educate our children after they are out of high school. All this does is allow the same parents to set aside money to help educate their children in K through 12. That is all we are doing here. We are not really breaking any new ground. What is so wrong with that? What is wrong with that concept? This Senator from the State of Nebraska doesn't think there is anything wrong with it. As a matter of fact, we need more of that. We need more. We need less government influence and more local parent-teacher influence in education. So much misinformation has been spread around on this issue. We should set the record straight. As I said, this does not inhibit, damage, nor affect public schools adversely at all. As a matter of fact, it helps public schools because the parents who set up the savings account can draw from that savings account to help their students and their children if they are in public school just as if they are in private school. Those moneys can be used for transportation, tutors, equipment, supplies, tuition-- anything that helps the student learn. After all, Mr. President, isn't that what this debate should be about? It shouldn't be about defending turf. It shouldn't be about, ``Gee, I do not want to give that program up.'' It should be allowing the parents to have as much direct influence and responsibility, as well as teachers, as well as the local school board, the city, the county and State, in how our young people are educated. That is what this debate is about. As we work our way through this Coverdell bill, expanding on what we already did last year in setting up education savings accounts, it should be a national debate, and it should reside in the arena of a philosophy about education. I would also point out that in the more than 200-year history of this country, there is one point that has been unmistakably clear. And I go back to an earlier point I made. Governments do not change behavior. Young people are formed from the inside out. Young people are not formed from the outside in. Young people are formed from their parents, their religious mentors, their religion, their teachers, their coaches, and private voluntary organizations like Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. That is how young people are taught. That is how they develop standards. That is how they develop expectations and understand values. That is what this debate is about. I hope we can focus on what is really important here, and that is helping our parents and our teachers help our students learn, to prepare them for a hopeful, happy, productive educated life. Only then can this great Nation not only survive but be dominant well into the next century, a nation which has produced so much good not only in this country but in the world. Think of what this country through freedom of expression, individual liberty, and our educational system has done for the world. That is our charge in this body. That is our responsibility--to assure that the next generations not only have the same opportunities but better opportunities and are better prepared than we were. The Coverdell bill is one way to help us get there. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, last month the U.N. global climate treaty became available for the formal signatures of those countries who reached agreement in Kyoto, Japan, in December. President Clinton has not signed the treaty. There is speculation, however, that he may sign the treaty this week. Today we remind the President that the U.N. global climate treaty does not meet the standards clearly established by the U.S. Senate in its 95-0 vote last year on the Byrd-Hagel resolution, Senate Resolution 98. The President should not sign any treaty until that treaty complies with Senate Resolution 98 in its entirety. The administration completely ignored the strong position of the Senate when it agreed to this treaty last December. I led the Senate observer group delegation to Kyoto, Japan, in December. After Vice President Gore came to Kyoto and instructed our negotiators to show ``increased flexibility,'' the doors were thrown open and the objective became very clear. The objective was: Let us get a deal at any cost. The clear advice of the U.S. Senate and the economic well-being of the American people were abandoned under pressure from the U.N. bureaucrats, international environmentalists and the 134 developing countries that were not even included--not even included--in the treaty. The United States of America was the only Nation to come out of these negotiations worse than it came in. In fact, there was no negotiation in Kyoto; there was only surrender. When the Senate voted last year on the Byrd-Hagel resolution, it was very clear as to what the resolution said. First, it directed the President not to sign any treaty that placed legally binding obligations on the United States to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless--unless--and I quote directly from S. Res. 98 passed last year by this body 95-0-- . . . unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions [for all nations] for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period. Meaning simply that if this was a global problem, it required a global solution. All nations had to be bound by legally binding mandates, not just the United States and the other developed nations. The message was simple. There was no ambiguity. This was not the administration's nebulous definition of ``meaningful participation'' for developing countries. This word of the Senate was quite clear. The Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. The Kyoto Protocol agreed to by the United States in December does not include a single developing country; 134 developing nations, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, many of whom compete fiercely--fiercely--with the United States for trade opportunities, are completely exempt from any obligations or responsibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. During a recent hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat, the lead U.S. negotiator in Kyoto, admitted the administration failed on this account. Secretary Eizenstat said--and I quote the Undersecretary--``You're absolutely right; we did not get binding commitments [from any] developing countries.'' The second requirement of the Byrd-Hagel resolution speaks directly to the impact this treaty would have on the American people. And it, too--it too--fell victim in Kyoto. Senate Resolution 98 stated that the President should not sign any treaty which ``. . . would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.'' The Kyoto Protocol would legally bind the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. It even goes much further than the President's own bottom line that he personally announced last October when President Clinton pledged he would not accept a baseline below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions, and he said there must be ``meaningful participation'' from all developing countries. Numerous independent economic studies predicted serious economic harm even if the administration had held to its position that it enunciated last October. These studies found job losses in the range of over 2 million, large increases in energy costs, a 50-cent increase in gas prices per gallon, a drop in economic growth rates of more than 1 percent a year, and major American industries being driven out of business or driven out of the United States--industries like steel, aluminum, petroleum refining, chemicals, iron, paper products, and cement. That is why American agriculture, American labor, American business and industry and many consumer groups have all united in opposition--in opposition--to this treaty. Yet, our negotiators in Kyoto--the ones who were supposed to be looking out for the American people--agreed to a treaty that would have had an even more devastating impact on the U.S. economy and on the lives of the American people. The administration's recent anemic attempt to develop an economic analysis showing ``minimal'' harm to the U.S. economy is laughable. It is truly laughable. No models, no numbers, no percentages, no economics. It is laughable. It is based on fabrication and vapor, on a wildly optimistic assumption--as an example, China, India and Mexico agreeing to the binding commitments in this treaty. That is nonsense, Mr. President. These very nations blocked language in Kyoto, Japan, last year that would have allowed developing countries to even voluntarily--voluntarily--undertake the obligations of this treaty. They will never agree to binding commitments, and have so stated. Even from an environmental standpoint, the Kyoto Protocol is a failure. This Wednesday is Earth Day, and some will undoubtedly attempt to hold up this treaty as an example of a significant accomplishment to help our environment. The truth is, this treaty is so flawed that it will do virtually nothing to slow the growth of manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Even if one accepts the validity of the science on global warming, which is still uncertain and at best contradictory, this treaty would do nothing to stop any of these emissions. The Kyoto Protocol excludes the very developing nations who will be responsible for more than 60 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions early in the next century. China will be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gasses by the year 2015. On February 13 of this year, the Washington Post reported, ``But even if the accord is ratified and fully implemented, it would barely dent the world's output of manmade greenhouse gasses * * * .'' This treaty makes no sense. It is folly, complete folly. Yet, the administration has made it clear that President Clinton intends to sign this treaty at some point during the period it is open for signature between now and next March. The administration has also made it very clear that it understands the treaty has no chance of ratification in the Senate and that it intends to withhold this treaty from Senate consideration. The President claims that the treaty is, in his words, ``a work in progress.'' This leaves people with the mistaken impression that the treaty remains under negotiation and that objectionable parts of the treaty can be negotiated away before it is submitted to the Senate. Mr. President, this is not the case. This is not the case. Why would anyone sign a legally binding treaty they consider a work in progress? That is complete nonsense. This treaty cannot be amended until it goes into force, and even then, only by a three-quarters vote of all countries that have become party to the protocol. The 134 developing countries that would not even voluntarily sign on to this, which are not bound by any emissions limits, make up more than the three-quarters of the world's nations. Hence, they control any amendment to this treaty. The countries that have no obligations in this treaty are the very nations that dictate and enforce its terms. This is outrageous. My coauthor of S. Res. 98, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, said recently on the floor of the Senate that the Kyoto Protocol did not meet either of the Senate standards laid out in the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Senator Byrd said, ``I hope that the President will not sign his name to the protocol at this point * * * I am concerned that if the President signs this protocol at this point, it will compromise his flexibility in dealing with the developing countries over the next year.'' Senator Byrd is absolutely correct. It makes no sense to sign a flawed treaty, thereby giving away our leverage and our negotiating strength. If the President believes this treaty is good enough to sign, it should be good enough, Mr. President, to submit to the Senate for an honest and open debate. The American people have a right to know exactly what obligations the United States would have under this treaty. Members of the Senate and the House will remain actively engaged in this issue. Oversight hearings will continue. We will continue to hold hearings this year to ensure that the administration does not attempt to implement this treaty or any part of this treaty prior to Senate ratification through Executive order, budget fiat, or regulatory action. During the Foreign Relations Committee hearing in February, I asked Secretary Eizenstat about any attempts to implement this treaty prior to Senate ratification. He replied, ``We have no intention through the back door or anything else, without Senate confirmation, of trying to impose or take any steps to impose what would be binding restrictions on our companies, on our industry, on our business, on our agriculture, on our commerce, or on our country until and unless the Senate of the United States says so.'' That is Secretary Eizenstat. Mr. President, we will hold the Clinton administration to its word. Recent news reports, however, have brought to light a very dishonest attempt by the EPA to impose carbon emissions caps through the deregulation of the electric industry. I was glad to see that the administration dropped this nonsense from its final electric deregulation proposal. There will be no implementation of this treaty before ratification by the Senate of the United States. The Senate's bottom line, as represented in the unanimous 95-0 vote on S. Res. 98, remains unchanged. The U.S. Senate will not support the ratification of the Kyoto treaty because it does not include binding commitments by the developing nations and does serious harm to the U.S. economy. This has become an economic treaty, not an environmental treaty, and it is a bad treaty for America. So bad that it will not be ratified by this body.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m., at which time the Senate will resume consideration of the budget resolution. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes conducted during today's session. However, the managers do expect amendments to be offered, and the next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday morning at a time to be determined by the majority leader. As always, Members will be notified as to the time of those votes. In addition, today the Senate may consider any executive or legislative business cleared for Senate action. In regard to the balance of the week, the Senate is expected to complete action on the budget resolution and the supplemental appropriations conference report, if available, prior to recessing for the Easter holidays. Therefore, Members can anticipate a very busy week of floor action. As a reminder to Members, the next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday at a time yet to be determined. It will be announced later. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise with about 20 minutes remaining before the vote on the IMF package. I wish to first thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for his leadership in this area. This is a tough issue. It is an important issue. It is an issue that has come to the floor with much heated debate and exchange. But I wish in just a minute to try to put some perspective on what we are doing here. First, our economy is connected to all economies of the world. When Asian markets go down and currencies are devalued, that means very simply that we in the United States cannot sell our products in Asia. Asia has represented over the last few years the most important new export opportunity for all of the United States--not just commodities and agriculture, but all exports. What we are doing today is connected to all parts of the world. We understand something very fundamental about markets and that is that markets respond to confidence. We in the United States--because it is, in fact, in our best interests to participate and lead, not to bail people out, not the IMF bailing anybody out, but what we are doing through a very deliberate businesslike approach, an approach through the IMF established 50 years ago--are participating in a loan process where this country has never lost $1. We ourselves have used this. So today all those colleagues of mine who have been so helpful, so involved, I wish to thank and wish also, in these final minutes, to encourage all my colleagues to take a look at this, understand the perspective, ramifications, the consequences, and the importance of what we doing here with this IMF support. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Two minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and distinguished colleague, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that is handling this piece of legislation. I am grateful. I might add, Mr. President, there were many people who worked hard, and some even diligently, on this to get an achievable reform package that really would do what the chairman from Kentucky has pointed out it would accomplish. There is not one among us in this body who did not want real reform, nor understand that real reform was required within the IMF structure. That was accomplished. I am proud of what we have done here and how we have done it. I am proud of the product. Beyond that, I think it is important to recognize that today we live in a global community, anchored by a global economy. Certainly all the markets of the world are important to the United States. Not just farmers and ranchers and small businesspeople, but every person in America is affected when markets go down and when currencies are devalued. Not that the United States should rescue or has the obligation or responsibility to rescue every economy, but we must lead because it is relevant, it is in our best interests, our national interest. We know that markets respond to confidence. What we are doing here is projecting the leadership that America must project in a global economy and with that is attached a certain amount of confidence. Investors and others around the globe, regardless where they look for those investments and opportunities in stable, secure areas, can do so with some confidence that all nations of the world are interconnected and have some global responsibility for those markets. I might also add to something the distinguished Senator McConnell from Kentucky mentioned. This is not foreign aid. There is some confusion about that when it is portrayed as a bailout to big bankers and big investors who care little about jeopardizing their own interests, thinking that there is some safety net of taxpayers' dollars under them. This is not a foreign aid bill. This is a process where for 50 years the United States has been essentially on a credit/demand process loaning money into the International Monetary Fund. We are repaid for those loans, and we are repaid with interest for those loans. We can get our money out of the IMF at any moment. The IMF moneys and accounts are backed up by gold reserves. The United States has never lost one dollar on any loan it has made to the IMF. As a matter of fact, it should be pointed out the United States, in fact, in 1978, took advantage of the IMF. So it is my opinion, and I think the opinion of many of my colleagues, that the IMF can play an important role in the world. It should not be the banker for everyone. It should not be the safety net for every investor, no. But, in a world that is interconnected--and when markets in Asia go down that backs up to every market in America; that we are connected--the IMF institute, and that kind of institution, is important as we trade and become more globally linked. So I am pleased that I have had an opportunity, along with many of my colleagues who were mentioned by Senator McConnell, to have played a small role in this. I encourage my colleagues to support what has been done here today and what has been agreed upon and the language that is in this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Grams, Roberts, Chafee, and Domenici in introducing the International Monetary Fund Reform Act. This legislation is the product of weeks of work and negotiation we have undertaken to develop a package of very tough--but achievable--reforms for the IMF. We all agree that there must be IMF reform. But relevant, workable, and achievable reforms are what we must put in place. It's in America's national interest for Congress to move swiftly to support the full $18 billion request for the IMF. Our actions--or inactions--will have real short-term and long-term economic consequences for America's interests in Asia and around the world. This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee that showed how important the IMF is to American agriculture and our ability to build and keep markets overseas. We cannot discount the importance of the message our actions or inactions here will send. A stable Asian marketplace is in America's interest. We are introducing this legislation today so that all our colleagues can review the compromise language we have put together. As the debate on this issue unfolds, we intend to remain actively involved. 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 joining with Senators Grams, Roberts, Chafee, and Domenici in introducing the International Monetary Fund Reform Act. This legislation is the product of weeks of work and negotiation we have undertaken to develop a package of very tough--but achievable--reforms for the IMF. We all agree that there must be IMF reform. But relevant, workable, and achievable reforms are what we must put in place. It's in America's national interest for Congress to move swiftly to support the full $18 billion request for the IMF. Our actions--or inactions--will have real short-term and long-term economic consequences for America's interests in Asia and around the world. This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee that showed how important the IMF is to American agriculture and our ability to build and keep markets overseas. We cannot discount the importance of the message our actions or inactions here will send. A stable Asian marketplace is in America's interest. We are introducing this legislation today so that all our colleagues can review the compromise language we have put together. As the debate on this issue unfolds, we intend to remain actively involved. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to call attention to a significant day in our Nation's history. Not only is this St. Patrick's Day, but it was 25 years ago today, St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 1973, that our friend and colleague, Senator John McCain, was released from the Hanoi Hilton. Senator McCain was shot down over Vietnam on October 26, 1967, and spent almost 6 years in a North Vietnamese prison. Most of that time was in solitary confinement. It is appropriate today that we not only recognize that 25-year anniversary of Senator McCain, but recognize the leadership, the inspiration and what he has meant to this country. In a day when I know many people sometimes question whether values do count and standards and expectations do count, our colleague, our friend, Senator McCain, is an embodiment to what is best in this country, what has always been best, and what always will be important--that is loyalty and commitment to your country, that is dedication, it is values and standards, it is having high expectations in oneself. It is a rather unique example of how someone has been able to take the experience that he has had and harness that energy and focus that energy for something very positive for this country and to help make this world better. That is Senator John McCain. This morning, some of our colleagues--I see one on the floor, our friend, Senator Cleland from Georgia, who, too, gave so much to his country in the Vietnam war--recognized John McCain in a surprise visit to his office at 9:15. One of the things that we gave him was a United States Navy A-4 jet fighter ejection seat. I reminded him when he came to campaign for me in 1996, as we flew across Nebraska in a small plane, one of the copilots said, ``Now, let me explain to you how you get out of this plane if you need to,'' and I interrupted this young pilot by saying, ``Senator McCain never uses the door, he gets out another way.'' As that young pilot went up into the cockpit, the other pilot said, ``You dummy, that is Senator McCain. Don't you know the story how he ejected and crash landed and did these incredible things?'' We reminisced about that this morning and then presented Senator McCain an actual A-4 ejection seat. I don't know what he does with that, but a couple of old infantry men like Senator Cleland and I were out of our league dealing with the ejection seats and we didn't go near that seat. Suffice it to say that this Nation owes Senator McCain and all the POWs a great debt. We recognize their service, their commitment, their loyalty, but mostly we recognize their leadership and what they have meant to us when times are tough and when we dig down deep in our society and we look for standards and leadership and commitment and role models. Mr. President, that role model is John McCain. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will debate the cloture motion relative to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2646, the A+ education bill, under Senator Coverdell's amendment until 12:15 p.m., with the first hour under the control of Senator Daschle and the second hour under the control of Senator Coverdell. As previously ordered, at 12:15 the Senate will conduct a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the A+ Education bill. Following that vote, the Senate will recess for the weekly party caucuses to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there will be an immediate vote on the confirmation of Susan Graber to be U.S. circuit judge in Oregon. In addition, if cloture is invoked on the previously mentioned motion to proceed to H.R. 2646, the Senate will begin 30 hours of debate on the motion to proceed following the judicial vote. Also, the Senate may consider S. 414, the international shipping bill, S. 270, the Texas low-level radioactive waste bill and other legislative or executive business cleared for Senate action. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, these are very serious times. The administration and America face a complicated and dangerous dilemma in Iraq. This dilemma must be approached from a framework of both our short-term and long-term foreign policy objectives. As the administration weighs its short-term options, including the possibility of military action with regard to the situation in Iraq, I believe it is very important that we in the Senate keep a steady focus on the objective before we start playing out these other options. We all know that any military action must have a clear objective. If our Nation decides to risk the lives of young American men and women, we must do so for a clear purpose, with a clear understanding of the possible intended and unintended consequences and a reasonable assurance of success. Let us remember that the original objective in the Iraqi puzzle was the full compliance by Saddam Hussein with the 1991 resolutions that ended the Gulf war. Most important is Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, which clearly spelled out Iraq's obligations under the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf war. Those obligations have the force of international law and still stand today. This has been the U.N.'s primary focus and objective. It was Saddam Hussein who created this current situation when he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the world united against him. This is not the United States and Great Britain against Iraq. This has been the civilized world united against a pariah intent on developing and using weapons of mass destruction. We have sympathy for the Iraqi people. The U.N., led by the United States, has provided millions of dollars in humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people. But we must remember that Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people and has starved his own people in his clandestine and relentless pursuit of these weapons. Time after time he has directly challenged the terms of his surrender under the U.N. resolution. What he is now challenging is the resolve of the world community to stand up to him. The members of the international coalition that condemned his actions in 1991 and fought against him must remember who is the guilty party here; who is the guilty party. The guilty party is Saddam Hussein. Just as the world stood united in terms of his surrender, it should stand united and resolved in action against his defiance of those terms. If he refuses to comply with U.N. Resolution 687, he will pay a heavy price. And if Saddam Hussein offers his own people as sacrificial lambs, their blood surely will be on his hands. Mr. President, there is a growing chorus which suggests that perhaps our short-term objective should be more than Saddam Hussein's full compliance with U.N. Resolution 687, that our immediate short-term objective should be to expel Saddam Hussein from Iraq, to sweep him from the world stage. This kind of talk is very dangerous and inhibits the administration's efforts as it seeks to reconstruct the 1991 coalition united against Saddam Hussein. Let us not be buffeted by the winds of quick fixes, bombing raids and shortsightedness. Saddam Hussein has cleverly framed this world debate as Iraq against the United States. We must not play into his manipulative hands. This is not the equation. We all would like to eliminate the threat he poses to the civilized world and that should be our long-term goal. That should be our long- term goal. But for the moment we must not forget that from objectives come actions, and from actions come consequences. Every objective carries with it a different set of military options and will have very real consequences. Actions always produce consequences and not always the geopolitical consequences we expect. We must guard against the short-term objective turning into a long-term unexpected problem. After our lightning success in Desert Storm, I fear that we, as Americans, may have been lulled into a false sense of believing that modern wars can be fought relatively quickly and painlessly, with high- tech weapons and very limited casualties. This is not the case, nor will it ever be the case in warfare. Those who believe that this greater short-term objective could be accomplished without the use of a massive ground force are underestimating the task. We need to be aware of the ``law of unintended consequences.'' There are always uncertainties in war. The consequences of any kind of military undertaking are far-reaching. With the current tensions in this region and the grim prospects for peace in the Middle East, this area of the world could erupt like a tinder box. Whatever military action might be taken against Saddam Hussein, it must be surgical, it must be precise, and it must be focused and, above all, well thought out. Other nations would undoubtedly seek to increase their spheres of influence in the Middle East if our immediate objective was to eliminate Saddam Hussein. If we were to escalate the level of our short-term objective, would we create consequences just as, if not more, dangerous to our national interests in the world than the situation we currently face? As painfully slow as this process seems to be moving, events can unfold very quickly and uncontrollably. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to stampede us into precipitous actions. Remember how the Six Day War began in 1967. Remember other events of this century that engulfed nations in wider, larger, and more deadly conflicts than anyone could have predicted. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to keep this in mind when thinking about how to respond to the present situation in Iraq. What chain of events will we unleash with any action we take? Always the question must be asked, what then happens? What happens next? Are we prepared to not only answer this question but deal with the answer? Any short-term action must fit into a long-term foreign policy objective. Any short-term action that America takes must fit into a long-term foreign policy objective. What is the administration's long-term objective in Iraq? Do we have one? Or are we crafting a long-term policy to justify short-term actions? In the long term, I believe we need to be more creative in reviewing our options against Saddam Hussein. We must not allow ourselves to get caught up in the trap of doing something--anything--just because we said we would and the world expects us to. Our options should be based on what's right, what's achievable commensurate with the risk we are willing to take with American lives and what will truly have an impact in resolving the problem. And the problem is Saddam Hussein. Mr. President, I am a little disturbed about reports over the weekend quoting high-ranking administration officials and congressional leaders saying such things as: We may have to face the reality that we will not get U.N. inspection teams back into Iraq; any military action would be to just slow Saddam Hussein down and we would have to keep going back to bomb him again and again every so many months and years; and our allies' support of us in Iraq may be tied to our future commitment to NATO. These are disconcerting remarks. We owe it to our country and the men and women in uniform who will be called upon to fight a war, if that decision is made, to do better than just bomb Saddam Hussein. First of all, the military option alone will not work if we truly want a final resolution of this problem. Some form of immediate military action may well be required as part of an overall long-term solution but only a part, only a part of a long-term solution. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, Richard Perle, in a Washington Post op-ed piece yesterday, listed a series of political actions that could be taken along with any military actions in Iraq. I believe Secretary Perle's analysis and general recommendations should be taken seriously and I ask unanimous consent that his article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HAGEL. I find that I am asking myself the unescapable question-- are we preparing to send our young men and women to war because we just all expect that this is the thing to do because we don't know what else to do? That is not good enough. There is something very surreal about all the war talk, and war preparation being played out in this matter of fact tone on international TV with every talk show panelist in the world presenting his or her theories and options on war in Iraq--when most all of them have never been to war, prepared for war or understand the first thing about the horrors of war. Our national defense is the guarantor of our foreign policy. I don't know if we have a long term policy on Iraq other than maintaining the U.N. sanctions and enforcing the resolutions, but that's not a foreign policy. If we are to commit America to war, it should be to enforce our foreign policy--just going to war alone is not enough. We must have an overall long term policy to enforce. The reason for war must be connected to more than just short-term sanctions enforcement. It is my opinion that if we exercise any military option it must be accompanied by and attached to creative geopolitical elements of a comprehensive policy toward Iraq--geopolitical elements such as Secretary Perle listed yesterday. In the long run, how do we realistically get rid of Saddam Hussein? That's the policy question we should have been focused on over the last seven years. Sending America to war with one ally is no policy. We can do better. We must do better. Nations lead from their strength of purpose, self confidence, and character. As President Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``The one indispensable, requisite for both an individual and a nation is character.'' Allies will follow us if they trust our word and our policy. Bullying allies into submission for agreement is not leadership. With regard to the immediate situation in Iraq we need to remain focused on the original objective--the full compliance by Saddam Hussein with U.N. Resolution 687. We should not act out of frustration or impatience. We have to stay focused on the objective and not overstate--not overstate expectations to the American people or the world. For the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and loved ones of our men and women in the Gulf--we must proceed with clear eyed realism, not with emotionalism, not with revenge. There are no good options. Saddam Hussein is intent on building the most vile weapons in the history of man, weapons outlawed by nearly all the countries of the world, and is openly defying the will of the global community. He cannot go unchallenged. Should diplomatic efforts fail, we will be forced to take additional action to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the unanimous mandate of the U.N. Security Council. As long as this action meets a clear immediate objective, and the level of force is commensurate with that objective, the American people will come together and be unified behind the action taken. In the future, the American people and the Congress must have a more solid basis for our support. We cannot continue to ricochet from crisis to crisis and call that foreign policy. Our nation must develop a long term, coherent policy not only toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but toward the entire Middle East. How are we prepared to deal with Iran? How do we plan to help make meaningful and lasting progress in the Middle East peace process? What are our foreign policy objectives with regard to North Korea, China, Bosnia, Europe, Russia, Asia, and other areas of the world? These policies must be clearly stated and clearly understood by both our allies and our adversaries. As I said in the beginning, these are serious times. These are difficult times. There are no easy answers, only tough challenges and tough questions. They require serious solutions to serious questions from serious people. America is up to the task. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 February 9, 1998 This Time, Help Iraqis to Get Rid of Saddam's Regime (By Richard Perle; The Washington Post) The immediate provocation is Saddam Hussein's defiant attachment to weapons of mass destruction and his interference with UN inspectors charged with finding and eliminating them. Given the prospect of chemical and biological weapons in his murderous hands, military action is long overdue. But the more fundamental threat is Saddam Hussein himself. As long as he remains in power, it is idle to believe that this threat can be contained. That is why even a massive bombing campaign will fail-- unless it is part of an overall strategy to destroy his regime by helping the nascent democratic opposition to transform itself into Iraq's new government. America, alone if necessary, should encourage, recognize, help finance, arm and protect with airpower a provisional government broadly representative of all the people of Iraq. Such a program would not be easy. But it has a better chance and is a worthier contender than yet another failed effort to organize an anti-Saddam Hussein conspiracy among retired Iraqi generals, or another round of inconclusive air strikes. There is no repeat, no--chance that even a carefully conceived and well-executed bombing campaign would eliminate the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons (and the capacity to make more of them) that Saddam has hidden away. There is a real danger that an inadequate bombing campaign, especially if it appeared decisive, would be quickly followed by calls from other nations to lift the UN sanctions on the grounds that the danger was over. This would be the ultimate example of winning the battle and losing the war. A serious Western policy toward Iraq would be aimed at the destruction of Saddam's regime through a combination of military and political measures--with the political measures every bit as important as the military ones. Chief among these would be open support for the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella opposition group in which all elements of Iraqi society are represented. To be effective, support for the Iraqi opposition should be comprehensive: support given them in the past has been hopelessly inadequate. In fact, help for the Iraqi opposition, administered in an inept, halfhearted and ineffective way by the CIA, has been the political equivalent of the insubstantial, pinprick air strikes conducted against targets in Iraq in recent years. A serious political program would entail five elements: Washington should, first, recognize the democratic opposition as the legitimate, provisional government and support its claim to Iraq's seat at the United Nations. It should begin to disburse to the provisional government some of the billions of Iraqi assets frozen after the Kuwait invasion. It should lift the sanctions on the territory (now principally in the north but likely to spread) not under Saddam Hussein's control. This would catapult these areas into significant economic growth and attract defectors from within Iraq. Much of Iraq's oil lies in areas that Saddam cannot now control or over which he would quickly lose control if an opposition government were established there. It should assist the opposition in taking its message to the Iraqi people by making radio and television transmitters available to them. It must be prepared to give logistical support and military equipment to the opposition and to use airpower to defend it in the territory it controls. This is what should have been done in August 1996 when Saddam's troops and secret police moved into northern Iraq and murdered hundreds of supporters of the opposition Iraqi National Congress. Shamefully, America stood by while people it had supported were lined up and summarily executed. Skeptics will argue that the Iraqi National Congress is too frail a reed on which to base a strategy for eliminating Saddam. It is indeed a small corps (of perhaps a few thousand); it would need to rally significant popular support. But it has been steadfast in its principled opposition to Saddam, consistent in its democratic ambitions, and, when given the chance, able to establish itself in a significant area of Iraqi territory. It has earned American support by the sacrifices of its members. And with American backing it has a chance. It would be neither wise nor necessary to send ground forces into Iraqi when patriotic Iraqis are willing to fight to liberate their own country. I would not want to be in Saddam's tanks in the narrow defiles of northern Iraq, or in parts of the south, when U.S. airpower commands the skies. This strategy aims at eliciting a full-blown insurrection, taking off from territory Saddam does not control and spreading as his opponents find security and opportunity in joining with others who wish to liberate Iraq. There can be no guarantee that it will work. But what is guaranteed not to work is a quick-fix air campaign that leaves him in power.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Presiding Officer.