Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Senate Joint Resolution 40, introduced yesterday by my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, proposing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American Flag. From the birth of our nation, the Flag has represented all that is good and decent about our country. Whether it be the battlefields of Bunker Hill and Gettysburg, the trenches of Flanders Field, the shores of Normandy, the rugged terrain of Korea, the jungles of the Mekong, or the desert of Kuwait--the Stars and Stripes led young Americans into battle. Proud young soldiers would carry it high, and if they should fall another would be right there to pick up Old Glory and carry it forward. It may have been tattered by the battle and singed by fire of war, but the American flag burned as a guiding beacon of hope and freedom for our young men and women. For those who paid the ultimate price for our nation, the Flag blanketed their journey and graced their final rest place. You see, Mr. President, the Flag is not just a piece of cloth. The ``broad stripes and bright stars'' shining through the ``rockets' red glare'' inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled Banner. It is a symbol so sacred to our nation that we teach our children not to let it touch the ground. It flies over our schools, our churches and synagogues, our courts, our seats of government and homes across America. The Pledge of Allegiance unites all Americans regardless of race, creed or color. The flag is not just a symbol of America, it is America. Those who oppose this legislation say that it impinges on freedom of speech and violates our Constitution. In my view this is a hollow argument. There are many limits placed on ``free speech,'' including limiting yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Other freedoms of speech and expression are limited by our slander and libel laws. In 1989 and 1990 the Supreme Court of this great nation struck down flag protection laws by narrow votes. The Court has an obligation to protect and preserve our fundamental rights as citizens. However the American people understand the difference between freedom of speech and ``anything goes.'' When our citizens disagree with our national policy, there are a number of options available to them other than destroying the American Flag to make their point. Let them protest, let them write to their newspaper, let them organize, let them march, let them shout to the rooftops--but we should not let them burn the Flag. Too many have died defending the Flag for us to allow it to be used in any way that does not honor their sacrifice. Mr. President, in a day where too often we lament what has gone wrong with America, it's time to make a stand for decency, for honor and for pride in our nation. Just as the Flag has wrapped itself around the hearts and souls of our nation, let us now wrap the protection of our Constitution around the Flag.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until 2:45 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. In closing, Mr. President, this is a bad signal and a bad symptom. I hope that the Congress of the United States addresses this issue. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address what I believe is a serious issue. Let me read just the opening paragraph of a story that appeared this morning in The Washington Times. The headline of the story is ``Koop given waiver for burial at Arlington; former Surgeon General helped Hillary.'' The first paragraph of the story is this: President Clinton overrode Army opposition and granted a unique burial waiver at Arlington National Cemetery to C. Everett Koop at a time when First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had enlisted the former Surgeon General to support her national health care plan, internal documents showed yesterday. The story goes on to talk about not just the dynamics of an implied deal, but it is far more serious than just an implied deal in my opinion, Mr. President, because what we are talking about here is giving sacred resting spots of our Nation's veterans away as deals, as rewards, as bargaining chips, as thank yous, as awards, as quid pro quos. Mr. President, this is not only a bad precedent and very dangerous for the future of our country, but it flies in the face of the honor and the trust that America has always placed in its veterans and their service to our country. This is hallowed ground, Mr. President, this is sacred ground. Arlington National Cemetery is a national shrine. It should be a national shrine. We have very strict regulations and limitations as to who is allowed the great and distinct honor to be laid to rest at Arlington. Mr. President, I have no quarrel with Dr. Koop. He was a very successful and important Surgeon General, a renowned doctor, and he has done many good things for his profession and our country and our Government. But someone has to talk about this because, you see, there is a connection; there is a connection between what obviously was done and what is not being done today for our active military men and women in uniform and for our retirees. I would like to read just two lines from one of Rudyard Kipling's finest poems. This poem, Mr. Kipling wrote is called ``Tommy.'' Many veterans will know this poem. Two of the last lines go like this: For it's Tommy this an' Tommy that, an' chuck him out the brute! But it's ``savior of 'is country'' when the guns begin to shoot. Mr. President, this is a time when this body will debate and vote on shortly--in the next few weeks--whether we are going to ask our military, our men and women in uniform, who we call on every day to protect our liberties around the world, and we are going to commit them to more responsibility in Bosnia, NATO expansion, Iraq, maybe, yet we are now in a position to be giving away burial spots that were originally always intended for the man and the woman who put on America's military uniform and serve our country with great honor and great distinction. This is also a time, Mr. President, when veterans are having difficulty using the veterans' preference in getting jobs in the Federal Government. We are asking them constantly, especially over the last few years, as we have cut more and more of our defense budget, to do more with less. We are asking them to go on longer deployments and more deployments. The state of our military housing is embarrassing. Yet, the President is very proud to submit a military budget that has no increases. I watched this morning the President's news conference, bragging about this small, limited little Government we have, that we have cut Government. Well, again, as I said last week, I don't know how he measures the cutting of Government, but the fact is we are going to spend $1.7 trillion on this Government this year. The Defense Department budget continually gets hammered and hammered. There has been no increase, but a 40 percent reduction in the last 10 years. Health care. What have we done about health care for our retirees? We have done nothing. We have essentially taken away the promise that we made to these men and women in uniform, who served our country in time of war and peace, and now we are saying you need to get into the Medicare queue. I am sorry we cut back on military hospitals and on military personnel. Don't we understand that this may well inhibit readiness, retention, recruitment, and the best people for the military? Of course, it will.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this morning I come to the floor to recognize a man who has lived the American ideals of integrity, courage and, leadership. This man, Mr. President, is Dr. Tom Osborne, head football coach of the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers. My good friend and Nebraska colleague, former Governor of the State of Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey, joins me in this recognition this morning. I have also informed my good friends and colleague from the State of Michigan, where there seems to be some controversy as to which football team really was No. 1 at the end of the season, Michigan or Nebraska, that I would welcome their support in recognition as well. Quite honestly, and seriously, Mr. President, Senators Levin and Abraham have asked me to extend to Dr. Osborne their best wishes as well. Of course, with the distinguished Presiding Officer being a leader in the Kansas State Wildcats' efforts over the last few years, I, too, will add your good wishes for Dr. Osborne, and thank you, Mr. President. After 25 years as head coach, Tom Osborne has decided to retire and devote more of his time to his family and important voluntary organizations. Tom Osborne has been a constant in Nebraska sports history. In 1955, as a high school student in Hastings, NE, he was named the Omaha World Herald's High School Athlete of the Year. He continued his success in athletics at Hastings College where he was a starter on both the school's football and basketball teams. Once again, in 1958, the Omaha World Herald honored him with the College Athlete of the Year award. After a stint in the National Football League with the San Francisco 49ers and the Washington Redskins, he landed at the University of Nebraska in 1962. Shortly thereafter, he joined the now legendary football coach, the late Bob Devaney, and coordinated the offense for Nebraska's national championship teams in 1970 and 1971. In 1973 Tom took over from the retiring Devaney as head coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. Tom Osborne made lasting impressions on his players and people of Nebraska and all of college football. His resume is unprecedented and essentially unbelievable--a 25-year record of 255 wins, 49 losses and 3 ties. Over the past 5 years, his Cornhusker teams posted an NCAA record of 60 wins and 3 losses. Coach Osborne led the Huskers to three national championships--1994, 1995 and 1997 in which the Huskers shared the title, as I mentioned, with the University of Michigan. Tom led the Huskers to 13 Big 8/Big 12 Conference titles, 25 straight 9 win seasons and 25 straight bowl appearances. With all these accomplishments by his teams on the field, it should also be noted that, under Coach Osborne, Nebraska had 46 first team academic All-Americans and 201 academic all-conference honorees, and the graduation rate of Osborne's players leads and has led the Big 8/ Big 12 Conference and is ranked also as one of the highest graduation rates in the Nation. Tom Osborne loved coaching. It was his life. But he was more. He was more than just a coach. If you would ask any of his players, they would tell you that he was a father figure, a good friend. Osborne had many opportunities to leave college football and coach in the National Football League, but he never did. He had many opportunities to leave Nebraska, but he never did. He loved the coaching and the teaching associated with college football. But probably more than that, he loved the opportunity to help his players grow mentally and spiritually and become outstanding citizens. As Coach Osborne has said over his magnificent career, that in the end is all that counts. When the game is over, it is over. But what that young man does with his life at the end of his football career is most important; how he contributes to his community, to his family and to his nation is most important. The Nebraska football program will continue on successfully. There will be more national championships and conference titles, but Tom Osborne will not be at the helm. We all know that he will not be far away, however. When spring football practice starts, we probably will not expect to see Coach Osborne on campus. You might locate Coach Osborne at a local fishing hole. Tom Osborne will be remembered as one of the greatest college football coaches ever to stroll up and down the sidelines. His contributions to the University of Nebraska and college football will never be forgotten. When the reigning national co-champions run on to Tom Osborne Field next fall in Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, there will be something missing. The stoic figure of Tom Osborne will not be roaming the field guiding the Cornhuskers to another victory, but his inspiration and his legacy will be present. Thank you, Tom, for your leadership and your contributions. Thank you, most importantly, for your character, for serving as a role model for America's young people. You have inspired us all, and you will be missed. We all wish you well. We wish Nancy and your family much continued success, good health, happiness, and a little rest--and good fishing. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I would like to make a couple of observations about last night, the agenda for the second session of this 105th Congress; what is ahead of us, what is ahead for the American people, the challenges that lie ahead for the world. As I listened intently and seriously last night, as I am sure all my colleagues did, to the President's message, questions came to me like, ``Isn't the definition of the debate for this year and the defining of the debate that the Congress will have into the next century about the role of Government?'' That is the issue. What is the role of Government in our lives? How much Government do we want? How much Government can we afford? What do we want Government to do for us? And how much are we willing to pay for Government? The President--and I have all eight single-spaced pages of the text of his speech last night--gave a good speech. But the speech was about new programs, the federalization of America. This is the same President who said 2 years ago in a State of the Union Message that the era of big Government is gone. No more big Government. And then the President said last night, early on in his text, that we, today, have, ``the smallest Government in 35 years.'' I don't know how the President measures that, but this body is going to debate this year a $1.7 trillion Federal budget to keep this small little Government going. He talks about federalizing education. I don't find the responsibility of the Federal Government to be education anywhere in the Constitution. I don't find it in any document that education is in the purview and the province of the Federal Government. Yet this President says we, the Federal Government, representing the people who pay the taxes, are going to hire 100,000 new teachers. We are going to federalize new teachers. We are going to build new schools across America, federalize our schools. But yet, of course, he fails to tell us how he intends to do that. Where are those resources coming from? At the same time he boasts, rightfully so, that we in fact have moved toward balancing our budget. So he takes credit for that on this side. And then on this side we have page after page, line after line, of new Government spending proposals. Medicare has been running a deficit the last couple of years. Yet this President is proposing that we add more people onto Medicare. This is at the same time the President and the Congress have come together and said we need a Medicare commission, a bipartisan Medicare commission to take a look at the seriousness of the problem, of the issue, of the challenge, and report back to the President next year. But, no, he decides not to wait for that. Child care--we are going to federalize child care? These are all important, critical issues for our country, for our people. Of course they are. But I think we might be better off if we would essentially continue this effort to cut Government, cut spending, cut programs, cut taxes, and take the responsibility of governing ourselves back to where it should be; back to the cities, the school boards, the counties. Who best understands the problem? I trust school boards. I trust teachers. I trust parents. I don't trust bureaucrats. We are rapidly developing into this monolithic centralization of bureaucratic rule. People in the Department of Education and all these areas are good people, family people, but we just, year after year, load more on them. I ask this question when I hear a retort from my friends on the other side, or from the President, that Medicare, for example, and all these new programs, will pay for themselves; there will not be an increase in spending; we don't need to find more taxpayers' money: Is there anyone out there who can show me any time we have had a Federal program that has gotten smaller? Do Federal programs and agencies and bureaucracies and departments vanish after a few years? Oh, no, no; they get bigger. And who has to pay for it? My children and your children. And it gets bigger and bigger. Where have we cut Government in the 1990s? We have cut it in one department. What department? Defense. Our national security has been cut over the last 10 years in real dollars by 40 percent. How many other departments and agencies have been cut? None. So my point is this. Before we rush into all these new programs and new Government and new federalization, we better sober up for a moment. This is not a time for campaign rhetoric. This is not a time for campaign speeches. This is a time for clear-headed, strong, dynamic, smart, realistic leadership, gutsy leadership. That is what America demands. That is what America will get. I say these things not because I am opposed to the President or trying to complicate the President's life. But we, too, have a constitutional responsibility in this body. We have accountability to the people we represent. And this is one U.S. Senator who is going to ask some very tough questions about every one of these new programs. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Saturday, November 7, 1997, at 1:30 p.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the nomination of William J. Lynn III, to be Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1997. I am joined in this effort by my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Grams, and Kerrey. This legislation represents months of work in crafting a bill that has bipartisan support. The process has been open, and we have included all the affected parties: The Federal Home Loan Banks themselves, the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the banking industry. This process has allowed us to craft legislation that represents, above all, sound banking policy. This bill will help community banks and the consumers who rely on them. Take, for example, the case of Commercial State Bank in Wausa, NE. Commercial has served northeast Nebraska as an agricultural and business lender for more than 70 years. Now, with a growing economy in the region, the bank is growing as well. In the small community of 600 people, deposits cannot keep pace with the growing demand for loans--and that means the bank's liquidity is declining. With less liquidity, there just isn't as much money available for lending as the community demands. This bill would help banks like Commercial and communities like Wausa. As Doug Johnson, president of Commercial State Bank, wrote to me about this legislation: If banks like the Commercial State Bank were able to access the Federal Home Loan Bank, our customers would be better able to be serviced with a consistent and competitive source of funding. Denying credit to qualified borrowers is not productive for Nebraska or the Midwest. Unfortunately, those borrowers may miss the opportunities available to them at this time to improve their economic prosperity. Mr. President, that is what this bill is all about--helping small communities to better secure their economic futures. The Federal Home Loan Bank system was established in 1932, primarily to provide a source of credit to savings and loan institutions for home lending. Now, a majority of the members in the FHLB system are commercial banks. We should update this system to recognize this change in its membership. Not since 1989 has significant Federal Home Loan Bank legislation become law. The system is working well, but I believe Congress can make it better. It's time for Congress to act. This legislation has four main components: First, it recognizes the importance of the FHLB system to community banks. Many smaller institutions are dependent on deposits to fund lending in their local communities. Because of competition from non bank competitors, those deposits are shrinking. That is going to mean less community lending--which will hurt the economies of these small communities. A recent article in American Banker newspaper titled ``Small Banks Face Crisis as Deposits Drain Away'' highlighted this problem, and I ask that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Our legislation would ease membership requirements for smaller community banks and thrifts that are vital sources of credit in their local communities. It would allow the FHLB System to be more easily accessed as an important source of liquidity for community lenders. These institutions would be permitted to post different types of collateral for various kinds of lending. This critical change will facilitate more small business, rural development, agricultural, and low-income community development lending in rural and urban communities. The second main component of this bill is an issue of basic fairness. Federally chartered savings associations, or thrifts as they are called today, are required to be members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Commercial banks, on the other hand, are voluntary members. This disparity is unfair. Our legislation allows federally chartered thrifts to become voluntary members. This is important to these institutions, which are large stockholders in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. It is critical that all member financial institutions have the ability to choose whether Federal Home Loan Bank membership is appropriate or not. As a result of this action, we also equalize stock purchase requirements for all member institutions. We do this in a way that maintains and enhances the safety and soundness of the FHLB system. The third component of this legislation fixes an imbalance in the system's annual REFCORP obligation. Currently, the 12 FHLBanks must collectively pay a fixed $300 million obligation to service the REFCORP bonds that were issued to help pay for the S&L bailout. This fixed obligation has driven the banks to increase their levels of non-mission-related investments. Under our legislation each FHLBank would be required to pay 20.75 percent of its earnings to service the REFCORP debt. Freeing the FHLBanks of the obligation to generate a specific dollar figure would allow them to concentrate on their primary mission of housing finance and community lending. This change was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing Federal revenues by $44 million over the next 5 years. In other words, this change would allow a $44 million reduction in taxpayer obligations. Fourth and finally, the legislation addresses the issue of devolution of management functions from the Finance Board to the FHLBanks. On issues of day-to-day management, the FHLBanks should be able to govern themselves independently of their regulator. The function of the Finance Board should be mission regulation and safety-and-soundness regulation. The provisions of the legislation that accomplish this goal are non controversial and enjoy broad support. Mr. President, it is time to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The landscape of the financial services industry is rapidly evolving. The Federal Home Loan Banks should be allowed to modernize to keep pace with these changes. I am proud to take up this issue in the Senate and build on the work done in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Baker and Kanjorski, both tireless proponents for Federal Home Loan Bank modernization. Their help in the formulation of this legislation was critical. I sincerely hope the Senate Banking Committee and the full Senate will have the chance to consider this important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1997. I am joined in this effort by my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Grams, and Kerrey. This legislation represents months of work in crafting a bill that has bipartisan support. The process has been open, and we have included all the affected parties: The Federal Home Loan Banks themselves, the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the banking industry. This process has allowed us to craft legislation that represents, above all, sound banking policy. This bill will help community banks and the consumers who rely on them. Take, for example, the case of Commercial State Bank in Wausa, NE. Commercial has served northeast Nebraska as an agricultural and business lender for more than 70 years. Now, with a growing economy in the region, the bank is growing as well. In the small community of 600 people, deposits cannot keep pace with the growing demand for loans--and that means the bank's liquidity is declining. With less liquidity, there just isn't as much money available for lending as the community demands. This bill would help banks like Commercial and communities like Wausa. As Doug Johnson, president of Commercial State Bank, wrote to me about this legislation: If banks like the Commercial State Bank were able to access the Federal Home Loan Bank, our customers would be better able to be serviced with a consistent and competitive source of funding. Denying credit to qualified borrowers is not productive for Nebraska or the Midwest. Unfortunately, those borrowers may miss the opportunities available to them at this time to improve their economic prosperity. Mr. President, that is what this bill is all about--helping small communities to better secure their economic futures. The Federal Home Loan Bank system was established in 1932, primarily to provide a source of credit to savings and loan institutions for home lending. Now, a majority of the members in the FHLB system are commercial banks. We should update this system to recognize this change in its membership. Not since 1989 has significant Federal Home Loan Bank legislation become law. The system is working well, but I believe Congress can make it better. It's time for Congress to act. This legislation has four main components: First, it recognizes the importance of the FHLB system to community banks. Many smaller institutions are dependent on deposits to fund lending in their local communities. Because of competition from non bank competitors, those deposits are shrinking. That is going to mean less community lending--which will hurt the economies of these small communities. A recent article in American Banker newspaper titled ``Small Banks Face Crisis as Deposits Drain Away'' highlighted this problem, and I ask that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Our legislation would ease membership requirements for smaller community banks and thrifts that are vital sources of credit in their local communities. It would allow the FHLB System to be more easily accessed as an important source of liquidity for community lenders. These institutions would be permitted to post different types of collateral for various kinds of lending. This critical change will facilitate more small business, rural development, agricultural, and low-income community development lending in rural and urban communities. The second main component of this bill is an issue of basic fairness. Federally chartered savings associations, or thrifts as they are called today, are required to be members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Commercial banks, on the other hand, are voluntary members. This disparity is unfair. Our legislation allows federally chartered thrifts to become voluntary members. This is important to these institutions, which are large stockholders in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. It is critical that all member financial institutions have the ability to choose whether Federal Home Loan Bank membership is appropriate or not. As a result of this action, we also equalize stock purchase requirements for all member institutions. We do this in a way that maintains and enhances the safety and soundness of the FHLB system. The third component of this legislation fixes an imbalance in the system's annual REFCORP obligation. Currently, the 12 FHLBanks must collectively pay a fixed $300 million obligation to service the REFCORP bonds that were issued to help pay for the S&L bailout. This fixed obligation has driven the banks to increase their levels of non-mission-related investments. Under our legislation each FHLBank would be required to pay 20.75 percent of its earnings to service the REFCORP debt. Freeing the FHLBanks of the obligation to generate a specific dollar figure would allow them to concentrate on their primary mission of housing finance and community lending. This change was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing Federal revenues by $44 million over the next 5 years. In other words, this change would allow a $44 million reduction in taxpayer obligations. Fourth and finally, the legislation addresses the issue of devolution of management functions from the Finance Board to the FHLBanks. On issues of day-to-day management, the FHLBanks should be able to govern themselves independently of their regulator. The function of the Finance Board should be mission regulation and safety-and-soundness regulation. The provisions of the legislation that accomplish this goal are non controversial and enjoy broad support. Mr. President, it is time to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The landscape of the financial services industry is rapidly evolving. The Federal Home Loan Banks should be allowed to modernize to keep pace with these changes. I am proud to take up this issue in the Senate and build on the work done in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Baker and Kanjorski, both tireless proponents for Federal Home Loan Bank modernization. Their help in the formulation of this legislation was critical. I sincerely hope the Senate Banking Committee and the full Senate will have the chance to consider this important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the chairman for his leadership and the leadership of the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Levin. Mr. President, it is rather appropriate that we debate this issue today. Next week is Veterans Day. It is the day, a unique day, when America honors the sacrifices and commitments made by our men and women who served in uniform. I rise today to speak in support of the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill conference report. As we have debated this important bill over the past few months, I couldn't help but wonder whether we would be able to meet our national security challenges in the years ahead with the current state of our readiness of our current military forces. Our national defense ensures the survival of our Nation and our interests around the world. Our national defense is not only the protector of the American people, it is the guarantor of our foreign policy. One of the most important national debates we need to have is over what kind of military will be required as the world moves into the next century. Are we making the necessary investments to meet that need and will America be strong enough to back up the international commitments being made today by our President? I am very concerned, Mr. President, that we are not making the necessary investments that we will need to make to have the military capability to back up those commitments in 5 to 10 years. While the cold war is over, the world is still very dangerous. It is very uncertain. It requires a skilled, highly mobile military force structure. Rather than one global enemy that we can work to contain, we need to be able to respond to head off crises in hot spots around the world. Look at our situation today. We have troops in Bosnia. We have a madman in the Middle East whom we already went to war with once, and again he rattles his saber and threatens the peace. We are faced with the continuing menaces, the dilemma in North Korea. We face proliferation, not only of nuclear weapons, but of chemical and biological weapons around the world. What are the issues on the horizon? Next year, this body will make a decision on expanding the security blanket of NATO eastward. Difficult decisions still must be made regarding Bosnia. The Caspian Sea has the world's second largest oil reserves, located in the center of a very turbulent area of the world. The Middle East continues to be in turmoil. What will the future requirements be for the U.S. military? No one can predict with certainty what those requirements will be. But what has made our military the most powerful in the world and has kept the peace is the preparedness and the ability of the United States to respond to whatever crisis may develop worldwide. In a turbulent, unpredictable world, we cannot now risk weakness. As President Ronald Reagan said so clearly--peace through strength. Our dedicated men and women in uniform are up to the task, as they have always been up to the task. However, our military has suffered Draconian cuts over the past 10 years. In real dollars--in real dollars, Mr. President--the U.S. military, our national defense, has taken far deeper and more dramatic cuts than any other area of our Federal budget. Over the last 10 years our defense budget has been reduced in real numbers by 40 percent. We are deferring--we are deferring--vitally important weapons procurement systems to meet our needs for the future. That is not leadership. Today, I fear we could not repeat what we accomplished during the Desert Storm war because of our strength and our readiness, because that has been cut so drastically. Not a comforting thought, Mr. President, with the current situation in Iraq. Our Armed Forces have been stretched to the breaking point. While the administration has continually proposed reduced spending in our defense budget, the President continues to deploy more and more overseas forces. At the same time we have been cutting our national defense resources, we have been directing more and larger overseas deployments. This, Mr. President, is very dangerous, with severe long-term consequences for peace and stability worldwide. We are witnessing an unhealthy stress in our military today. Since 1989, the Army's missions around the world have increased by 300 percent--while funding for our primary land forces has decreased by 38 percent, and the number of soldiers has declined by 35 percent. In the Air Force we face a similar story. Recent press reports indicate that 107 Air Force pilots who were eligible for promotion this year from captain to major asked not to be considered, they decided to leave active service instead. The senior leadership in the Air Force say they have seen an alarming number of pilots leave the Air Force and are concerned that so many pilots are finding the demands of a military career on their families so stressful that they are choosing to quit. It is not just about money either. Most say they are not concerned about going in harm's way, but they are concerned about their unit's readiness to face the challenges ahead. I am pleased to note that this bill does begin to reverse the downward trend in defense spending by increasing the administration's request by $2.6 billion. It is a good start on the road back to restoring our military forces to a complete ability to defend our vital interests around the world--but it is not enough. I understand that some of my colleagues believe that this bill is now irrelevant. They say we have passed an appropriations bill already, why do we need an authorization bill? We need this bill to authorize a 2.8- percent pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Who among us wants to look a soldier in the eye, whom the President has just sent to Bosnia and say, ``we sent you in harm's way, but you and your family don't merit a pay increase.'' How many of us in the Senate are aware, according to the administration's own data, that compensation for our men and women in uniform currently lags 12.9-percent behind the private sector. Without this meager pay increase, our soldiers would fall even further behind civilian wages, at a time when the administration asks them to do more with less on a daily basis. The pay raise issue alone should be enough justification to support this bill. However, there is more. By the Defense Department's own estimates 23,000 service men and women are eligible for food stamps. There is no honor for a nation that asks its men and women in uniform to risk their lives to defend it, then asks them to feed their families with food stamps and live in rundown, dilapidated housing. Another reason we need this bill enacted into law involves housing for our military personnel. Denying them appropriate and just compensation is clearly one issue. If we, as a nation can't pay our service members enough, surely we can at least provide them with decent, affordable housing. Here again we are failing our troops. As most of my colleagues are aware, military construction projects require both authorization and appropriation to be executed. If the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill is not enacted this year, more than $4 billion in military construction projects cannot be executed during the coming year. If we do not provide our men and women in uniform with at least a decent quality of life for them and for their families, how can we expect to recruit and retain the best and the brightest? Signals from the White House indicate that the President is considering a veto of this bill. I ask him to reconsider. Chairman Thurmond and the members of his committee have worked tirelessly to reach an accommodation with both sides in the depot closure debate. This divisive issue has consumed enough of our efforts. It is time to move on. We are wasting time and draining precious resources away from our Nation's military readiness. Let's show some leadership and get on with our responsibility. In summary, Mr. President, I close with this: National defense should not be a partisan issue. The security of our Nation is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is an American issue. The debate over our national defense should not be driven by economic decisions. It should not be driven by jobs. We must be steely eyed, clear eyed, clear headed when we make these decisions for our national security. Deferring tough decisions and lack of vision and shortsightedness in planning our national defense will have deadly consequences for the future of America and the world. I strongly support this bill and strongly encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today the United States is unilaterally disarmed in the intense global competition for new markets. For the first time since 1974, the President lacks fast-track authority to negotiate agreements that would help open up new markets and reduce international barriers to U.S. exports. This failure means slower economic growth, lost markets overseas, and fewer opportunities for high-paying jobs. Fast-track authority allows the President to submit to Congress a clean vote on trade agreements negotiated with other countries. Under our Constitution, the Congress alone has the power to ``lay and collect . . . Duties'' and ``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . .'' The Constitution, however, uniquely empowers the President to send and receive ambassadors and negotiate with foreign powers. Over 20 years ago, the fast-track mechanism was created to accommodate this divided authority. Renewal of fast-track authority will enable our Nation to continue pressing for world economic systems based on free markets, free trade and free people. As a nation, the continued growth of our economy depends on trade. In the past 50 years, trade share of the world's gross domestic product grew from 7 percent to 21 percent. Today, trade makes up 24 percent of the U.S. economy. This decade, export growth has created 23 percent of all new U.S. jobs, and those export-related jobs pay 13 percent more than the national average. Clearly, our economy will suffer without the ability to continue to negotiate timely new agreements to further open foreign markets to U.S. goods, commodities and services. Those opposed to renewing the President's fast-track authority argue that the lack of such authority does nothing to hinder the President's ability to negotiate new trade agreements. Unfortunately, this is not the case. No nation will enter into a major new trade negotiation with the United States if the product of those negotiations can be picked apart in the U.S. Congress. With any agreement that can later be unilaterally changed or amended by the Congress, we run the risk of having no agreement at all. As long as the President lacks the ability to present such agreements to the Congress for our clean approval or disapproval--and bad agreements deserve to be defeated--our Nation will be endangering its ability to compete in today's competitive global economy. Our Nation should be working aggressively to reach new agreements that will expand free trade and open up the emerging economies of Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe to American exports. We should be building on the major achievements of the last global trade talks. These talks, the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, for the first time, established rules for services and agriculture goods, two areas where the United States leads the world in global competitiveness. Instead, the United States is losing opportunities for economic growth and job creation. It is time to do what is right for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses. It is time to restore fast- track negotiating authority for the President. I hope that my colleagues take a good look at this and do support fast-track authority for the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, as an original cosponsor to his legislation to strengthen the President's hand in opening up China's market to American exports. I commend Chairman Roth for his leadership on trade issues. This bill would extend permanent most-favored-nation trading status to China upon that country's accession to membership of the World Trade Organization under commercially viable terms. Mr. President, I believe that the annual debate over so-called most- favored-nation trading status for China has become counterproductive. It is time for the United States and China to transcend this flawed process. It is time for trade relations between our two countries to be based on the normal commercial standards that one would expect between two of the world's great trading powers. This legislation would greatly strengthen the President's hand in achieving trade negotiations with China. It would do this by giving the President the authority to grant China permanent MFN status upon that country's accession to the WTO under normal commercial arrangements. As long as the Congress merely promises to consider granting permanent MFN status after China has agreed to accept WTO obligations, the President's leverage in trade negotiations with China will be weakened. I would like to emphasize that I do not support China's entry into the World Trade Organization under any special arrangement that would allow China to avoid full compliance with WTO standards. However, China's accession to the WTO under normal commercial arrangements would be good for the United States and good for the world trading system. It would require China to adhere to international trading standards. And should China fail to live up to its WTO obligations, we would then have access to the WTO's multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms. As long as China remains outside of the WTO, our only recourse for resolving our trade disputes with China is through the threat of often less effective bilateral actions, such as threats of section 301 trade sanctions. But once China becomes a member of the WTO under a viable commercial protocol, the rules of the WTO require other WTO nations to grant permanent MFN to China. If we do not, we lose much of the benefit of getting China to accept WTO rules. This is because the United States would be denied access to the WTO's dispute resolution process for forcing China to live up to its agreements. That is why this bill is so important. There are a great number of common misunderstanding over the annual debate on so-called most-favored-nation trading status for China. First of all, the archaic term ``most favored nation'' is itself misleading. MFN status is not, as many believe, some special trade benefit. It is not even the most favored trading status that we maintain with other countries. The United States grants much more favorable trade status to many other countries, including Canada, Israel, Mexico, the countries of the Caribbean, and a host of other nations--more than 130 in all-- that benefit from special trade programs. All MFN status means is that we are willing to maintain some semblance of regular trade relations with that country. This is demonstrated by the fact that only six countries in the world do not have MFN status. What is more, under current trade laws, there is no middle ground between full MFN trading status with average tariffs of 4 percent, and the disastrous 1930's-era Smoot-Hawley tariffs that average over 50 percent. Let there be no doubt about the consequences of repealing MFN trading status for China: it would mean a virtual end to United States- China trade relations. United States trade with China is important. Throughout the ages, commerce has been a driving force of modernity and the spread of western ideas. Withdrawing from China will not bring the kind of change we are all seeking in that still autocratic system. Isolating China economically would have a disastrous and counterproductive result. Nevertheless, there are serious trade issues between the United States and China that need to be resolved. This bill will make their resolution more likely. Nebraska is a major exporting state, with total exports last year of $2.45 billion of which $1.5 billion was food or agricultural products. Nebraska's meat exports to the world, primarily beef, grew 89 percent in the first half of this decade. United States beef exports to China, however, are severely constrained by China's 80 percent tariffs. These levels must come down in the context of the WTO negotiations. China also maintains a wide range of trade restrictions that are illegal under WTO rules. These illegal trade barriers include unscientific health laws that entirely prohibit certain types of U.S. wheat exports. Mr. President, aggressive United States efforts to negotiate China's entry into the WTO under normal commercial arrangements is clearly in our national interest. The United States continues to run a large, persistent trade deficit with China. Last year, our deficit reached $39 billion, and it is expected to be higher this year. But the way to reduce that deficit is not by closing off our borders and cutting off export markets, but to work aggressively to open those markets, particularly the China market. Export jobs pay 13-16 percent more than average American jobs. Exports are the future of our Nation, and we need to have China's market opened to American goods, services, and agricultural commodities.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, as an original cosponsor to his legislation to strengthen the President's hand in opening up China's market to American exports. I commend Chairman Roth for his leadership on trade issues. This bill would extend permanent most-favored-nation trading status to China upon that country's accession to membership of the World Trade Organization under commercially viable terms. Mr. President, I believe that the annual debate over so-called most- favored-nation trading status for China has become counterproductive. It is time for the United States and China to transcend this flawed process. It is time for trade relations between our two countries to be based on the normal commercial standards that one would expect between two of the world's great trading powers. This legislation would greatly strengthen the President's hand in achieving trade negotiations with China. It would do this by giving the President the authority to grant China permanent MFN status upon that country's accession to the WTO under normal commercial arrangements. As long as the Congress merely promises to consider granting permanent MFN status after China has agreed to accept WTO obligations, the President's leverage in trade negotiations with China will be weakened. I would like to emphasize that I do not support China's entry into the World Trade Organization under any special arrangement that would allow China to avoid full compliance with WTO standards. However, China's accession to the WTO under normal commercial arrangements would be good for the United States and good for the world trading system. It would require China to adhere to international trading standards. And should China fail to live up to its WTO obligations, we would then have access to the WTO's multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms. As long as China remains outside of the WTO, our only recourse for resolving our trade disputes with China is through the threat of often less effective bilateral actions, such as threats of section 301 trade sanctions. But once China becomes a member of the WTO under a viable commercial protocol, the rules of the WTO require other WTO nations to grant permanent MFN to China. If we do not, we lose much of the benefit of getting China to accept WTO rules. This is because the United States would be denied access to the WTO's dispute resolution process for forcing China to live up to its agreements. That is why this bill is so important. There are a great number of common misunderstanding over the annual debate on so-called most-favored-nation trading status for China. First of all, the archaic term ``most favored nation'' is itself misleading. MFN status is not, as many believe, some special trade benefit. It is not even the most favored trading status that we maintain with other countries. The United States grants much more favorable trade status to many other countries, including Canada, Israel, Mexico, the countries of the Caribbean, and a host of other nations--more than 130 in all-- that benefit from special trade programs. All MFN status means is that we are willing to maintain some semblance of regular trade relations with that country. This is demonstrated by the fact that only six countries in the world do not have MFN status. What is more, under current trade laws, there is no middle ground between full MFN trading status with average tariffs of 4 percent, and the disastrous 1930's-era Smoot-Hawley tariffs that average over 50 percent. Let there be no doubt about the consequences of repealing MFN trading status for China: it would mean a virtual end to United States- China trade relations. United States trade with China is important. Throughout the ages, commerce has been a driving force of modernity and the spread of western ideas. Withdrawing from China will not bring the kind of change we are all seeking in that still autocratic system. Isolating China economically would have a disastrous and counterproductive result. Nevertheless, there are serious trade issues between the United States and China that need to be resolved. This bill will make their resolution more likely. Nebraska is a major exporting state, with total exports last year of $2.45 billion of which $1.5 billion was food or agricultural products. Nebraska's meat exports to the world, primarily beef, grew 89 percent in the first half of this decade. United States beef exports to China, however, are severely constrained by China's 80 percent tariffs. These levels must come down in the context of the WTO negotiations. China also maintains a wide range of trade restrictions that are illegal under WTO rules. These illegal trade barriers include unscientific health laws that entirely prohibit certain types of U.S. wheat exports. Mr. President, aggressive United States efforts to negotiate China's entry into the WTO under normal commercial arrangements is clearly in our national interest. The United States continues to run a large, persistent trade deficit with China. Last year, our deficit reached $39 billion, and it is expected to be higher this year. But the way to reduce that deficit is not by closing off our borders and cutting off export markets, but to work aggressively to open those markets, particularly the China market. Export jobs pay 13-16 percent more than average American jobs. Exports are the future of our Nation, and we need to have China's market opened to American goods, services, and agricultural commodities.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I object to further consideration of these matters at this time.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I understand that there are two items that are due to be read a second time. I ask that they be read consecutively at this time.

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. This morning, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. Following morning business, we hope to begin consideration of the pending Federal Reserve Board nominees or the Interior appropriations conference report. Also, later in the day, we hope to make progress on amendments to S. 1173, the highway legislation. As Members are aware, a fourth cloture motion was filed to the highway bill on Friday, so there will be a cloture vote on Tuesday at a time yet to be determined. In addition, the Senate could be asked to consider Amtrak strike legislation during this week as well. Under the previous order, at 5 p.m. today the Senate will vote on the confirmation of the Marbley of Ohio nomination to be U.S. district judge. Members are reminded that this may not necessarily be the only vote scheduled today. Members will be notified when other votes are scheduled.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United States announced the United States negotiating position on the U.N. global climate treaty. Some have called the President's position a compromise. I would say that is the case only if you define compromise as an action that would have devastating consequences for the United States without any meaningful progress toward the overall goal. This is how an editorial in Investors Business Daily defined the President's proposal yesterday morning. This doesn't make any sense. ``Signing a treaty that hobbles U.S. growth getting no environmental payoff in return.'' Now, here is what does make sense. ``Listening to science rather than overheated rhetoric and acting on the basis of real events, not computer models.'' The President's announcement follows along the same lines of what this administration has been pushing in international circles for years. No matter how he wraps his package, the President is still talking about making the United States, our businesses, our people, subject to legally binding international mandates while letting more than 130 nations off the hook. Most important for this body, the U.S. Senate, is how does the administration's position stack up against the Byrd-Hagel resolution which passed this body in July by a vote of 95 to zero? The Clinton administration's position announced yesterday falls woefully short on all counts. The President obviously realizes this since he stated yesterday that America cannot wait for the U.S. Senate on this issue. The President said: I want to emphasize that we cannot wait until the treaty is negotiated and ratified to act. This flies in the face of the Constitution and the powers it gives to the U.S. Senate to give approval for the ratification of treaties. Why does the President's proposal fall short? Regarding participation by the developing nations, the Byrd-Hagel resolution states very clearly that no treaty will get the support of the U.S. Senate unless, and I read from the Byrd-Hagel resolution, ``* * * unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties within the same compliance period.'' That is very clear. I noted some of my colleagues yesterday, and others, have said what the President proposed yesterday is in full compliance with Byrd-Hagel. I strongly recommend to those colleagues who actually believe that, that they go back and read the Byrd-Hagel resolution. It is only five pages long. It is not legal. It is very clearly understood by everyone. What this means also is that support of the U.S. Senate is contingent upon China, Mexico, India, Brazil and the other 130 developing nations committing to specific limitations on greenhouse gas emissions within the same time period as the United States and the other industrialized nations. Anything less, anything less than this, what is clearly defined in the Byrd-Hagel resolution put forward by the U.S. Senate, is not in compliance and it is the U.S. Senate that will have the final say on any treaty signed by the administration in Kyoto, Japan, in December. At the same time President Clinton was calling for ``meaningful participation''--those were his words--meaningful participation by the developing countries, at the same time he was saying that, this is what his negotiator in Bonn, Germany, Ambassador Mark Hambley, was saying in a prepared release. ``In our view,'' said Ambassador Hambley, the President's negotiator in Bonn Germany this week--``In our view, this proposal is fully consistent with the Berlin mandate--it imposes no new substantive commitments on developing countries now. Instead, it calls for such obligations to be developed following the third conference of the parties'' in Kyoto in December. I think that is rather clear, what Ambassador Hambley said: That the Third World, the developing nations, would not be called upon for any commitments, any obligations in this treaty. It is obvious that this administration has no intention of ensuring that the developing countries have to meet the same obligations as the United States. What about the second condition of the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which stated the Senate would not ratify a treaty that would cause serious economic harm to the United States? Most of the economic impact studies are based exactly on what the President proposed yesterday, in terms of timetables, targets, reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010, and excluding the developing nations from any binding limitations of greenhouse gases. The President's own analysis shows that this will require a 30-percent cut in projected energy use by the year 2010. So, we are going to cut our energy use, between now and the year 2010, by 30 percent; at the same time the administration says we don't have an economic analysis to really understand what economic impact this might have on our economy, on jobs. After a year and a half of the administration promising to me and others in both the House and the Senate that they would come forward with an economic model and economic analysis showing that there would be no harm to our economy, they have now said: Well, economic models don't mean anything. But we are going to surge forward and sign that treaty having no understanding whatsoever of what it might do to our economy, to jobs. I have seen studies, I have seen economic models and analyses done by the AFL-CIO, done by independent economists, done by business, done by industry, done by the agriculture industry, farmers, ranchers. The results are not good. Here is what these studies have shown: Job losses in the millions for this country, lower economic growth in this country meaning a lower standard of living and less opportunities for all Americans, energy rationing. What the Clinton administration is talking about is the rationing of energy use in the United States. Remember the gas lines the last time this country rationed energy use in the 1970's? I remember them very well. Energy taxes--I know the administration has said we don't think this is going to require any taxes. We are not sure, but we will kind of get going, sign that treaty and bind the United States to these commitments, and allow an international body to enforce and police and administer it. Maybe we will need more taxes, who knows, they say. In an October 4 article in the Washington Times an unnamed Clinton administration official said that the President's proposal would raise energy taxes up to five times greater than the Btu tax the Clinton administration proposed back in 1993. That is devastating. That is devastating. Much of the State that I represent, Nebraska, is agricultural. Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry. When you start talking about raising taxes on energy five times greater than what President Clinton proposed in 1993, that will put literally thousands of farmers and ranchers and agricultural interests out of business. What I find incredible about this is at the same time the President is asking for fast-track legislation because we are trying to do something about our deficit of payments, deficit in the balance of payments to China, to Japan, all the other areas of trade we are trying to pursue, what this would do is go the other way, make our products less competitive because they would cost more. Higher prices for all goods because of higher energy costs mean American goods cost more worldwide, making American products and services less competitive in the world market. And when you are allowing China and Mexico and Brazil and India, South Korea, and 130 other nations not to legally bind themselves to this, what do you think happens in the world marketplace? Our products cost more, our services cost more, and these other nations' economies will thrive as their products cost less. Does that put us in a stronger competitive position worldwide? I don't think so. The real question is, for what? Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? The nations that would be excluded, the over 130 nations that would be excluded from this treaty are the nations that will be responsible for 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions within the next 20 years. Not the United States, the nations that we are not asking to bind themselves to this treaty. China, which has said very forcefully that it will never agree to legally binding emission limits, will be the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by the year 2015. By 2025, China will surpass the United States, Japan and Canada combined, as the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Yet we are not asking them to sign up to any legally binding mandate to do something about their greenhouse gas emissions. So how can any treaty that exempts these 134 nations be at all effective in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions? It will not. This is folly. This is feel-good folly. It makes great press, but it is insane that we would bind our Nation to this kind of folly and allow these other nations to go untouched. What President Clinton proposed yesterday is for the American people to bear the cost and suffer the pain of a treaty that will not work. That is the legacy, or more appropriately the lunacy he would leave to the children of America. I have always said that this debate is not about who is for or against the environment. That is not the debate. We are all concerned about the environment. We are concerned about the environment we leave to our children and our grandchildren, our future generations. But let's use some common sense here. Let's use some American common sense. Mr. President, in its present form, this treaty will not win Senate approval. We can do better. We must do better. Our future generations are counting on us to do better. Let's bring some balance, some perspective and some common sense to this issue and do it right. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.