Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. More than 95 percent of farmers and ranchers are self- employed and generally pay the full cost of their insurance coverage themselves. Our bill makes a real difference to them as well. I am involved in this issue because it is vitally important to my home State of Nebraska. There are 98,000 self-employed people in Nebraska, of whom more than 10,000 are uninsured. These are real numbers. These are real people. This legislation can make a real difference for them--making their health insurance more affordable and their businesses more profitable. Every State in America has hardworking, self-employed men and women who need the tax relief and health care assistance this bill offers. I hope my colleagues will support this important effort. Exhibit 1 Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation, Lincoln, NE, April 10, 1997. Hon. Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chuck: On behalf of Nebraska's largest farm organization, I am writing to offer Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation's strong support for your legislation that would provide a 100 percent tax deduction of health insurance premiums for the self-employed. Deductibility of health insurance premium costs for self- employed individuals has been a long standing goal of Farm Bureau. More than 95 percent of farmers and ranchers are self-employed and generally pay the full cost of their insurance coverage themselves. In addition, many farm families are forced into a situation where a spouse must get an off-farm job primarily to obtain more affordable health insurance coverage for their family. The cost of self-employed health insurance, when not purchased as part of a group, can be significant and cause financial hardships for some individuals and farm families. In many cases, farmers and ranchers pay more than $3,000 to $5,000 annually for health insurance. Farmers and ranchers are looking at many avenues to cut skyrocketing health insurance premiums. More farmers have moved to higher deductible policies--quite often in the $2,500 to $5,000 range. In other cases, farmers are opting to go without health insurance altogether. As you know, current federal tax law allows self-employed people to deduct 30 percent of the cost of their health insurance premiums. That will increase to 80 percent by the year 2006. Current federal tax law also allows corporations to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premium costs. Members of Nebraska Farm Bureau believe that fairness and equity dictate that Nebraska's self-employed individuals receive the same tax treatment as other employees and employers. Nebraska Farm Bureau appreciates your work on the introduction of this legislation and we wholeheartedly offer our support to this effort. Respectively, Bryce P. Neidig, President.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague and fellow tax cutter, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. The people of the United States are drowning in a sea of taxes. Reducing the tax burden on the American taxpayer was a principal reason I ran for the U.S. Senate last year. Tax relief is a top priority for my State, for Nebraskans, and I believe for all Americans. We must make it a top priority in this Congress. We must make it a top priority in this Congress for the American people. American taxpayers are honest, hard-working people. They deserve to reap and to keep the benefits of their labors. Yet, the typical American family pays more in taxes than it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined. On average, nearly 40 percent of income goes for taxes; 28 percent goes for those other necessities of life. I say other necessities because it seems in America today taxes are considered a necessity, a more important necessity than food, shelter, and clothing. These numbers are according to the Tax Foundation. That is not what our forebears envisioned for America. That is not the freedom that so many of our people have fought, sacrificed, and died to defend. That is not the America we want to leave our children and our grandchildren. Our people, Madam President, deserve better. The American people want less Government, less regulation, less spending, and less taxes. It is time for our leaders, the leaders of this body, the leaders of the Congress of the United States of America to act on America's wishes. It is time for significant tax relief. Tomorrow is tax day 1997. We must make change happen. We must provide the leadership to make tax relief happen now. The heavy burden of taxes must be taken off the American people so they can enjoy the life they work hard to provide their families and not have to worry if they will have enough to be able to survive financially. As we look down the road into the next generation, we know by any scoring of the budget that unless we make drastic changes in our spending habits, spending habits that now have given this country a $5.3 trillion debt, and we add $700 million a day to that debt, if we do not change those spending habits and out of control fiscal policy in this country, we know one thing: that within 10 years, every dollar in the Federal budget will be consumed by four programs--interest on the national debt and entitlements. There will be not $1 for national defense, for roads, for scholarships, for the environment--not $1. It will go to pay interest, not even the principal, interest on the national debt and for entitlements. This is the modern challenge. This is the modern challenge to our ongoing quest to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. We need to look to the future, we need to look seriously to the future, and we need to look to the future now. We need to completely overhaul our present Tax Code. It is a sham, it is ridiculous, it is an embarrassment. Our system is too complicated, too punitive and too unfair. We need to make it flatter, fairer and simple, and we need to get at it now. We need to look at all the options as we tackle this issue, but we must make sure that a new Tax Code eases the burden on the American taxpayer and encourages--encourages--rather than inhibits or destroys growth, investment, and savings. Growth, investment and savings, that is our future. That is how we pay down this debt. That is how we continue to give generation after generation in this country real opportunities, like my generation has had and every preceding generation has had. We have a very important stewardship here. This is a stewardship about fiscal responsibility, that our children and our grandchildren inherit something worth inheriting, not a mound of debt, not a concern that they will not have an opportunity to buy a home or send their children to college. We must ensure that the American taxpayer is treated fairly and that any new tax system is managed correctly. The people who enforce our tax system must always--always--act with respect for taxpaying men and women. We need a smaller, leaner, more responsive Government. Americans are willing to pay for the Government they need, but they are not willing to keep paying for the oversized, overreaching Government that we now have. The Omaha World Herald, the State daily newspaper in my State of Nebraska, recently put the case very well, and I quote from the Omaha World Herald: Taxation isn't evil. Without it, the Constitution's mandate of providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare might well go unfulfilled. But there's a point at which too much taxation makes Government the master of the people instead of their servant. Let me repeat that. There's a point at which too much taxation makes Government the master of the people instead of their servant. That point comes nearer each year that Government figuratively gobbles up more of the workday for its own needs, leaving Americans less time to support themselves and provide for their families. Today, the typical worker works 2 hours 49 minutes of each 8-hour work day just to pay taxes at every level of government. That is almost three times as high as it was in 1930 when it took only 1 hour each day to earn enough to pay taxes at every level of government. This trend will continue until something is done. The time for tax relief is now. If we fail to provide that relief, our economy will weaken--it surely will weaken--our people will suffer and our role in a global economy will be lessened, and just at a time when America should be leading the world into a grand hopeful new century, a century that should be full of promise and hope and opportunity. We will have to forfeit the leadership and the opportunities that should be there for our young people. But if we meet the challenge, we will open the door to an exciting new era in America and the world. This country is great, not because of its Government, not because of the country; the Government is great and the people are great and the Nation is great because of our culture, because of our people. Let's not hold our people back from their potential with a heavier and heavier tax burden. But rather, let's allow our citizens to flourish, prosper and soar, just as we have done in this country for over 200 years. Americans deserve tax relief. I intend to do all I can to make that happen. We need tax cuts and spending cuts now. Madam President, I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very mindful of my distinguished colleagues' time. I too want to add my thoughts and thanks to my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire and fellow Vietnam veterans. Mr. President, I join my colleagues tonight in confirming former Congressman Pete Peterson to be our Nation's Ambassador to the socialist Republic of Vietnam. Through his integrity, hard work, and bipartisan temperament, he has earned the highest possible regard of his former colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle, and I think that is evident tonight. I can think of no other American better suited to be the first United States Ambassador to Vietnam, and I know, as do my colleagues, that Congressman Peterson will bring his integrity and unique personal experiences to this extraordinarily challenging job which we all wish him well with and we all will help him with. As a Vietnam veteran, as my colleagues here in the Chamber, I know well how the issue of Vietnam has for so long divided this country, but all the Senate Vietnam veterans agree that not only is it time for the United States to have an Ambassador to Vietnam, we also agree that Congressman Peterson, soon to be Ambassador Peterson, is an outstanding choice for this difficult assignment. A small minority of Americans continue to question whether this is appropriate, whether it is an appropriate time in United States-Vietnam relations to have a United States Ambassador in Hanoi, and certainly those views deserve respect. Personally, however, I believe that the time for healing has, indeed, arrived, and Congressman Peterson is the one to lead us in that direction. Congressman Peterson will bring not only his own experience to the POW Vietnam combat veteran, but he also has been a successful businessman and respected Member of Congress, the recipient of 18 military medals including the Legion of Merit, two Purple Hearts. He is a man of great personal strength and mind with something missing for too long in this business, a quiet dignity, a quiet confidence, a respect for others. Clearly, President Clinton has chosen well with his nomination, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in confirming Pete Peterson to be the first United States Ambassador to a united Vietnam. On a personal note, Mr. President, I might add I bring him greetings from his family and his friends in Nebraska. The Congressman was off to a good start early on in life; he was born in Omaha, NE, and still has many relatives and friends there. And so that gives him probably an unfair advantage to be a most unusual and a most effective Ambassador for this country, and we wish him well. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts and fellow Vietnam veteran for allowing me a little of his time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I would like to add my thoughts regarding the nomination.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the American people are fed up with the IRS and its tactics. They are calling for change. Today I have taken a first step to help. I am joining as a cosponsor of S. 365, the Internal Revenue Service Accountability Act, which was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell. The IRS is in disarray from its top management all the way down to its field offices, and American taxpayers are paying the price for that disarray--a price in inefficiency, in inconvenience, in intrusiveness, and even in harassment. It is not fair for American taxpayers to fund an agency that is wasting their money and time. It is time to clean up the IRS. It is time for a change. The IRS Accountability Act puts a tight rein on the IRS and its agents. It makes IRS agents personally accountable for their actions and subjects them to criminal prosecution if they abuse their authority by harassing taxpayers. The bill makes it a crime to release information from tax returns without proper authority. It restricts the ability of the IRS to conduct audits. It ensures that the IRS will abide by court decisions against it. And it ensures that taxpayers have a chance to correct any honest mistakes on their tax forms without incurring a penalty. American taxpayers are honest, hard workers. They do not deserve an overzealous agency with its agents tormenting and harassing them. It is time to make the IRS more accountable for its actions. This bill is an important first step toward protecting Americans from a Tax Code that is unfair, restrictive, punitive, and complicated. We need to do more. We need to completely overhaul our Tax Code to make it flatter, fairer, and simpler. We need to look at all options as we tackle this issue, but we must make sure that a new Tax Code eases the burden for families and businesses and encourages, rather than inhibits, growth, investment, and savings. That should be our top priority. That is our task for the coming months and years. But until we can successfully meet that greater challenge, the very least we can do for the American taxpayer is to get the IRS cleaned up and off the taxpayers' backs. The time has come for tax relief. The people of the United States have had enough. They want less government, less regulation, and less taxes. And they want less hassle and harassment from their Government. The IRS Accountability Act is a good start. As we approach tax day, April 15, it is only appropriate that we take a bold step toward fixing the IRS. The time for change is now.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback. This bill is an important step toward opening foreign markets to American products--especially our agricultural products. Several countries have State Trading Enterprises that control all imports of certain products. These trading enterprises create a bottleneck in trade--a bottleneck controlled by the Government, not by free enterprise. The result is that foreign politics end up controlling trade decisions, and American exporters get hurt. This bill would require the United States to oppose membership in the World Trade Organization for any country that has a State Trading Enterprise that refuses to buy our products for reasons other than market conditions. Its purpose is simple: It gives America leverage against countries that shut out our exporters for political reasons. This is important for all of America's exporters, who benefit from having a level playing field. It is especially important for American farmers. This bill will give our negotiators an important new tool to use as they oppose the unjustified actions of State trading enterprises around the world. It will help us get American dairy products into New Zealand and American wheat into Canada. But its most important effect will be in regard to China. China is an enormous and growing market. As China emerges economically, we must do all we can to bring China into the world trading system as a full partner. If we want our exporters to do business in China's emerging market, we need to ensure that China plays by all the rules of trade that govern the rest of the world. The discussions about China's accession to the World Trade Organization are ongoing. I strongly believe China must accept all obligations that WTO membership entails. That includes letting the market, not the politicians, control its trading decisions. China must dismantle its remaining State Trading Enterprises--especially the enterprise that controls the import of wheat into the country. American farmers--especially our wheat producers--need full and free access to China's market. This bill gives our trade negotiators a small but important tool to help ensure that will happen. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback. This bill is an important step toward opening foreign markets to American products--especially our agricultural products. Several countries have State Trading Enterprises that control all imports of certain products. These trading enterprises create a bottleneck in trade--a bottleneck controlled by the Government, not by free enterprise. The result is that foreign politics end up controlling trade decisions, and American exporters get hurt. This bill would require the United States to oppose membership in the World Trade Organization for any country that has a State Trading Enterprise that refuses to buy our products for reasons other than market conditions. Its purpose is simple: It gives America leverage against countries that shut out our exporters for political reasons. This is important for all of America's exporters, who benefit from having a level playing field. It is especially important for American farmers. This bill will give our negotiators an important new tool to use as they oppose the unjustified actions of State trading enterprises around the world. It will help us get American dairy products into New Zealand and American wheat into Canada. But its most important effect will be in regard to China. China is an enormous and growing market. As China emerges economically, we must do all we can to bring China into the world trading system as a full partner. If we want our exporters to do business in China's emerging market, we need to ensure that China plays by all the rules of trade that govern the rest of the world. The discussions about China's accession to the World Trade Organization are ongoing. I strongly believe China must accept all obligations that WTO membership entails. That includes letting the market, not the politicians, control its trading decisions. China must dismantle its remaining State Trading Enterprises--especially the enterprise that controls the import of wheat into the country. American farmers--especially our wheat producers--need full and free access to China's market. This bill gives our trade negotiators a small but important tool to help ensure that will happen. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Joint Resolution 22, asking that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate the alleged illegal fundraising activities in the 1996 Presidential campaign. It is in the best interest of both the Nation and the Congress that an independent counsel be appointed. In light of the continued severity of the allegations that arise on a nearly daily basis, this is the only way to properly investigate wrongdoing and prosecute where laws were broken. The requests for an independent counsel have been bipartisan. I have twice written Attorney General Janet Reno and asked that an independent counsel be appointed. To date, I have not received a reply. We need an independent counsel to supplement congressional hearings. Only an independent counsel has the power to bring charges against those alleged of breaking the law. Congress will investigate, as we should--that is our responsibility--but we need someone looking into this with the ability to prosecute. I also fear whether Congress will be able to bear the entire responsibility for investigating these alleged campaign finance abuses and still act on the important issues awaiting our attention. We were elected by the people to address the challenges facing America. We were elected to solve problems. As we look forward to the 21st century, America is faced with serious challenges. Domestically, we must come to terms with our Federal budgetary problems, our national debt, the burden of taxes and regulations, the threat of crime, the explosive growth projected in entitlement programs. Internationally, we need to reshape a foreign policy, a foreign policy that will guide us through the uncharted and potentially treacherous waters of the post-cold-war era. This is a time of great hope, a time of great promise for the world. The fulfillment of this hope and promise will come only if America demonstrates bold, imaginative leadership, leadership that seizes the moment. Determining the direction our Nation will take beyond the year 2000 is a very critical debate, one that all the Nation should be involved with. The issues involved require and deserve the full attention of this body. We must not be held hostage by partisan bickering over campaign finance investigations and daily allegations of political wrongdoing. For example, Medicare's slide into bankruptcy will not wait for a determination of whether campaign finance laws were broken in last year's Presidential campaign. Action needs to be taken now to save Medicare, or America's seniors will pay the price. If we allow the poison of political retribution and revenge to dominate the Congress, we will never be able to work together on these very important issues. The congressional hearings are important. Surely they are important. Surely they must go forward. But we need to get to the bottom of this mess. At the same time, we cannot allow these hearings to overshadow the present challenges facing this body. Political leaders frequently express their dismay at the lack of confidence and trust the American people have in them and in all political institutions. However, we bring it on ourselves when the image we present to the American people is one of constant partisan wrangling and bitter accusations. When we allow our system to become polarized and paralyzed, the American people have to wonder who is on the job, who is looking out for their interests, who is governing America. The American people are tired of the lack of civility and the inflammatory rhetoric that too frequently dominate the political discourse in Washington. They are tired of the gridlock that results when both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue put political considerations before the Nation's business. The American people want action. They want their elected representatives to give their full attention to the challenges facing this country. They deserve nothing less. The destiny and legacy of our people is that we have always risen to meet the challenges put before us. As we lead America and the world into the 21st century, we must build on this legacy. Big challenges lie ahead. We fail our children and the children of the world if we allow ourselves to become bogged down in political intrigue and fail to address these important issues now. Criminal investigations should be taken out of politics. Prosecuting wrongdoing should be done without regard to politics. The Attorney General needs to appoint an independent counsel now. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 rise today in opposition to the constitutional amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. Allow me to say how much I respect my friend Senator Hollings and the years of service he has given to this great body and to America. During this time he has seen more than his share of scandals and has surely grown tired of and frustrated with what seems to be almost daily revelations of political wrongdoing. My argument is not with the Senator's motives or his quest for a better campaign finance system. I think we all agree with that. My argument is with this particular solution. In many ways it could not be more fitting for this body to begin the important debate over campaign finance reform than with this proposed constitutional amendment. As my colleague Senator Enzi said, by proposing a constitutional amendment, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina concedes what many who support restricting political speech fail to recognize: that denying an American citizen his or her constitutional right to contribute to a candidate of choice requires a fundamental rewriting of our country's most sacred document, our Constitution. I hope that my colleagues who support this measure will take pause and recognize the significance of what they intend to do. In particular, I hope that my colleagues who support this measure will realize, as Senator Enzi noted, the irony of the fact that less than 2 weeks ago this body killed a constitutional amendment that would have ensured our citizens and future generations a balanced Federal budget. Now, some of my colleagues wish to pass a constitutional amendment that would restrict one of our most basic constitutional rights--freedom of speech. The people know that we do not need to amend our Constitution, we need to amend our ways. We need to amend ourselves. Mr. President, I, like all of my colleagues, am concerned about corruption in our political system. And I believe this Congress will find ways to improve upon our campaign finance system. But, like corruption in any organization or system, it is the people who are corrupt, not the system. Why do we blame the system and excuse the violators? Where is the outrage with those who subvert the system and deliberately break the rules and laws already in place? The fact is, we already have campaign finance laws. We have a Federal Election Commission to enforce those laws. We do not need to continually add more layers of laws, regulations, and bureaucracy and pass those off to the American people as solutions to the problem. We need to deal severely with those who break the law and violate the trust and confidence the people have placed in them. We need to make certain those who seek public office and their campaign teams follow the current law and we need full and complete disclosure of all campaign receipts and expenditures for and against candidates, by candidates' campaigns, and by all political bodies. I do not believe we need to pass a constitutional amendment restricting the rights of our citizens. We need to focus on individual violations of current law. We need to focus on individual conduct and behavior, individual responsibility and accountability. I have often said to my colleagues, if each of us in public office conducted our campaigns--every aspect of our campaigns--in a manner that our constituents could be proud of, then we would not be engaged in this debate about campaign finance reform. I listened with interest to the political posturing and spins of the White House over the weekend and was amused but, more honestly, dismayed by what seemed to be an attitude of the end justifying the means. As the Wall Street Journal rightly noted in an editorial yesterday: Public life . . . is about mainly one thing--the law--the rules that all consent to abide by and enforce so that life can be civil. The role of a public servant, Mr. President, is to protect the laws and make sure they are being followed for the good of society. Our role is not to bend, mold, stretch or interpret the law to our own benefit or arrogantly disregard it in order to achieve a goal of our own making that we may find more noble than others. That is not what we are about. If it seems that we have heard this all before it's because we have. Senator Hollings knows that. That is why Senator Hollings has taken the floor, trying to resolve this issue. For decades, we have debated important social issues such as crime and welfare, and that violations of our laws were really not the responsibility of individuals--it was the system that we needed to fix. Individual accountability really was not very important. Life was unfair. ``If we truly want to find a solution to all of our problems,'' many argued ``then we should glide over individual responsibility and focus on how we can change the system.'' More laws, more rules, more regulation. Where is the outrage with men and women who have gained the public trust but violated it by not being held to the highest ethical and moral standards? What we are too often lacking is leadership and doing the right thing. We have the laws, we have the regulations, we have the enforcement mechanism. But we do not always have leaders who do the right thing. Mr. President, have we so lowered our standards and expectations in politics and society that the only way we can think to curtail individual wrongdoing is by amending the constitution? I refuse to accept that. I think we are better than that. This country, this society, our people are better than that. Where is the outrage over individuals who break the law and refuse to take responsibility for their actions? Where are the voices demanding personal responsibility and accountability? I believe that for too long we have been creating a society less dependent on the voluntary rule of good behavior by the citizen than on the oppressive mandate of Government. We must not be swayed by the emotion of the moment, or the pundits and politicians who would rather lead us down a dangerous path of restricting everyone's rights than have the courage to just do the right thing. The proposed constitutional amendment before us today would be an enormous step in the wrong direction for a society that has already become too dependent on regulation and procedure, and too little influenced by the behavior of its individual citizens. The goal of meaningful campaign finance reform should be to involve more people in the political process--not to curtail their constitutional rights. More than two centuries ago, the Framers of our Constitution set out to build a nation dedicated to government by consent of the governed. That Constitution draws its power from only one source: ``We the people.'' For two centuries, we the people have shaped this Nation and made it great. For two centuries, we the people have chosen our leaders from among ourselves and have held them to the highest standards. For two centuries, we the people have taken responsibility for the Federal Government of the United States of America. I sought the privilege to serve in the U.S. Senate with some of my distinguished colleagues like Senator Hollings, because I want to take power and authority away from the Government and return it to the people. I cannot support any proposal that seeks to limit the ability of the people to speak--and takes the power to shape our public debate away from the public and gives it to the Government. That is what this debate is about. In Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that the debate about campaign finances is about the fundamental role of the people in our democratic society. The Court wrote: In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. Mr. President, the system has not failed us. Our problems stem from a failure of leadership. I am outraged, not by the system, but by the deplorable conduct of those few men and women who abuse it. That is what outrages the American people. Before we reform the Constitution, we should first look at how we might reform ourselves. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Congressional Responsibility Act. I commend my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, for his leadership on this matter. This legislation is an important step toward restoring the intent of our Constitution's framers that Congress--not the executive branch-- makes the law. For too long, unelected bureaucrats in Federal departments and agencies have issued rules and regulations that have the force of law but that have never been deliberated by the people's elected representatives in Congress. That's not democracy. That's not accountability. America is not supposed to work that way. We all know stories of Federal regulations run amok. We know of rules that make no sense, of regulations whose costs far outweigh their benefits, of rules that either don't solve the problem or prove worse than doing nothing at all. Time and again, these senseless regulations hurt real people--people who expect accountability from their Government. Regulations have become one of the largest burdens on America's small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and private property owners. If Americans are to maintain faith in our democracy, the onslaught of regulation must be stopped. Of course, Congress is not perfect either--but at least we are accountable to the people. That is why the Framers intended that Congress would make laws, and the executive branch would only carry them out. Regulatory agencies should interpret the laws passed by Congress--not make laws of their own. That is why we need to restore the Constitution's intended separation of powers. This legislation would do just that. It would prevent any Federal regulation from taking effect until Congress votes on it. In essence, it transforms the Federal regulators into Federal advisors--suggesting regulations that Congress may or may not approve. Last year, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which permitted Congress to review major Federal regulations. That was an important first step. This legislation we are introducing today goes a step beyond that--it requires Congress to approve all federal regulations. If Congress does not approve, the regulators cannot regulate. Mr. President, this bill is an important tool to return accountability to the regulatory process. This is about cutting Government and renewing the basic principle of our democracy--that the people, through their elected representatives, control the Government, and not the other way around. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Congressional Responsibility Act. I commend my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, for his leadership on this matter. This legislation is an important step toward restoring the intent of our Constitution's framers that Congress--not the executive branch-- makes the law. For too long, unelected bureaucrats in Federal departments and agencies have issued rules and regulations that have the force of law but that have never been deliberated by the people's elected representatives in Congress. That's not democracy. That's not accountability. America is not supposed to work that way. We all know stories of Federal regulations run amok. We know of rules that make no sense, of regulations whose costs far outweigh their benefits, of rules that either don't solve the problem or prove worse than doing nothing at all. Time and again, these senseless regulations hurt real people--people who expect accountability from their Government. Regulations have become one of the largest burdens on America's small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and private property owners. If Americans are to maintain faith in our democracy, the onslaught of regulation must be stopped. Of course, Congress is not perfect either--but at least we are accountable to the people. That is why the Framers intended that Congress would make laws, and the executive branch would only carry them out. Regulatory agencies should interpret the laws passed by Congress--not make laws of their own. That is why we need to restore the Constitution's intended separation of powers. This legislation would do just that. It would prevent any Federal regulation from taking effect until Congress votes on it. In essence, it transforms the Federal regulators into Federal advisors--suggesting regulations that Congress may or may not approve. Last year, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which permitted Congress to review major Federal regulations. That was an important first step. This legislation we are introducing today goes a step beyond that--it requires Congress to approve all federal regulations. If Congress does not approve, the regulators cannot regulate. Mr. President, this bill is an important tool to return accountability to the regulatory process. This is about cutting Government and renewing the basic principle of our democracy--that the people, through their elected representatives, control the Government, and not the other way around. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ran for the Senate because I wanted to help strengthen America's future. I, like my colleagues here, want to help solve problems. America is reaching out for leadership to put our fiscal house in order. When we debate the budget, we are debating America's future, the future we leave for our children and our grandchildren--the opportunities they will have, the burdens in debt they will inherit, the America they will know. Balancing the budget must be our top priority, not because we have some abstract fascination with accounting but because the future of every man, woman, and child hangs in the balance. The future of our very liberty is at stake. That is why I strongly supported the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, an amendment that would have forced Congress to make the hard choices and set priorities, priorities that we have for too long avoided. Despite the support of all my Republican and 11 of my Democratic colleagues, the Senate last week defeated the balanced budget amendment. We lost by one vote. President Kennedy told us three decades ago that real leaders ``are not here to curse the darkness but to light a candle.'' Without the balanced budget amendment, we are still looking for a candle to guide us to a balanced budget. Now more than ever we need leadership for America's future. However, when I read the President's budget, I do not like the future I see. This budget offers a future that continues to pile up more and more and more debt. The President's proposal keeps running deficits for as far as the eye can see. Next year, the President's budget actually increases the deficit by more than $25 billion. That is not acceptable. Three weeks ago, I, along with 23 of my colleagues, sent a letter to the majority leader. As we told the leader, ``A path to a balanced budget should be just that--a path on which the deficit decreases every year in as near equal amounts as possible until the year 2002,'' the year of a balanced budget. The President has chosen another path. At the end of his path, there is still a pool of red ink. The Congressional Budget Office says the budget that the President has submitted is still $70 billion in the red in the year 2002. That is $70 billion, Mr. President, in the red in the year 2002. That is a far cry from responsible, balanced fiscal policy. That is a far cry from the balanced budget the President promised us. And it gets worse. The President's budget offers a future where we put off tough choices until ``tomorrow.'' We all know that in the world of the Federal budget ``tomorrow'' never comes. Our $5.3 trillion debt is proof enough of that fact. We have to act today if we are to balance the budget and save programs like Social Security and Medicare for years to come. We need to act today if we are to save programs that protect education and the environment. We need to act today if we want to maintain a strong national defense that will preserve our children's freedom as it has preserved ours. We need to act today if we care about tomorrow. The President's budget does not act today. The truth is it does not act at all; it is a fraud, and the people need to know it is a fraud. Mr. President, 98.5 percent of the deficit reduction in the President's budget comes in the last 2 years of his 7-year plan--98.5 percent. Those are not my figures. Those numbers come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Does anybody here remember the President's first State of the Union Address when he promised to rely on CBO's figures? Well, the CBO has spoken. It says the President's numbers just do not add up. The President's plan is very clear. He plans to put off the tough and painful choices until he is out of office and somebody else will have to make them. That is not leadership. That is business as usual. That is disaster. But even that is not all. The President's budget offers a future where taxes go up and families must work harder to have less. The President may put off real deficit reduction until later, but he does not procrastinate when it comes to raising taxes, for example. Despite the President's claim that he will cut taxes, the Joint Committee on Taxation reports that the budget the President has submitted will result in a net increase in taxes of $23 billion over the next 10 years. There is no tax cut. This budget includes at least 39 specific tax increases, and they are permanent. By contrast, those tax cuts that the President proposes expire by the year 2002. The bottom line is simple: The President's tax cuts are temporary and conditional, but his new tax increases are permanent. That is fraudulent. That is wrong. Last week, 13 of my colleagues joined me in a second letter to the majority leader. We made it very clear to the leader that we will not vote for any budget plan that increases taxes. Any solution to our budget problems that relies on tax increases is really no solution at all; it is just more debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified recently before the Senate Banking Committee that ``Ultimately, you cannot solve long-term deficits from the receipt side.'' He added, ``It's got to be from the expenditure side.'' That means cut spending. That is why we are here. I came to Washington, as did many of my colleagues, to cut spending, cut taxes and cut Government. We came to take power and authority away from the Federal Government and return it to the States and to the people. We did not come to destroy. We came to renew, to renew the American dream for future generations of Americans, to renew the freedom that made this Nation great and kept it strong. The President's budget does none of this. It increases spending. It increases taxes. It increases the power of the Federal Government. This body must be about the work of the future, not the past. It is immoral for us to mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future. The truth is the future begins now. It is in our hands. It is time for us to lead. We must balance the budget with a real balanced budget. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this is about leadership. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is about the future of this country. It is about bold leadership. It is about stepping up to the challenges that face our Nation and what kind of country we are going to leave to our children and to our grandchildren. This is about doing the right thing. This is not about esoteric, theoretical, and academic issues. This is not about deferring more of the same that we have deferred for almost 50 years in this country. This is about stepping up to the real challenges that affect real people that will have a lasting impact on this country. If we do not provide the bold, dynamic leadership that this country requires, then we will pay a heavy price in the future for our inaction. Our children and our grandchildren will pay a very high price. They will pay a price that will restrict their opportunities, restrict their future, and restrict the future of our Nation and the good this country can do for the rest of the world and for our people over the next 25 to 50 years. For those reasons, I strongly support this constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important issue for our Nation's men and women in uniform, an issue that you and I have spoken about. A recent article in the Omaha World Herald detailed problems that Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, headquarters for the Strategic Command, is having with the condition of military housing on that base. I would like to read just a few paragraphs from this story. This is a story all too familiar, Mr. President, especially to you as our distinguished leader in the Armed Services Committee. This is a quote from the Omaha World Herald story: Staff Sgt. Tony Suprenant and his wife, Karen, never thought that life in the United States Air Force meant they would get a palatial estate to call home. But the cramped and drafty townhouse that was offered to them when they arrived at Offutt Air Force Base last year was more of a sacrifice than they were willing to make. The two-bedroom home was so small that it would not hold the modest amount of furniture they had gathered during their 7 years together on five bases. Offutt officials eventually found a more spacious and recently refurbished three-bedroom home for the couple and their 2-year-old daughter, Emily. Not every family at that base is so lucky. Many of the 2,600 Offutt families who live in base housing must cope with cramped conditions and an array of maintenance headaches--frozen pipes, leaky basements, difficulty in heating and cooling--that have only increased with time and heavy use. Sadly, Mr. President, this is a problem that extends across the country and throughout all branches of our military throughout the world. It is a problem that we are not addressing as a nation, as a Congress. This is shameful. Like America's strength, our military strength is its people--the men and women and their families who have committed their lives to protecting the freedoms of this country. The Pentagon has estimated that they have problems with a majority of its 350,000 military housing units all over the world. In the Omaha World Herald article, Pete Potochney, who works in the Pentagon office overseeing military housing, is quoted as saying: We would consider a lot of our houses as being unsuitable. The Pentagon is devoting $680 million in the 1998 budget proposal to fix these houses. However, at that rate of spending, it will take the Pentagon more than 30 years to fix all of the housing that need fixing. Mr. President, the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States should not have to wait 30 years for adequate housing for their families. At the rate we are currently making progress, it is a rate that is being made on this issue far too slowly, and most, if not all, of our current military personnel will never live in decent housing at this rate. The Clinton administration has repeatedly proposed budget cuts and more budget cuts for our Nation's defense and our military. The President's national defense budget request for fiscal year 1998 is $2.9 billion less in budget authority than the level in the congressional budget resolution and $3.6 billion less in outlays. Moreover, the President's budget proposes a decrease of 16 percent for military construction in housing for our families. Military officials estimate they have problems with a majority of our military housing units, and yet the President has suggested reducing the funding for this program by 16 percent. He also proposes a decrease in the military personnel account. Where is the commitment in this budget to the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform? These men and women may be asked to put their lives on the line at any time, and yet we offer them inadequate housing and pay below the poverty line. This is wrong, Mr. President. This is very wrong. We are not taking care of our people in the military. If we do not reverse this trend, our national security will suffer. This is a readiness issue, just as it is a quality-of-life issue. Our troops are being deployed for longer periods of time, with more time away from their families and for more missions. We are asking more and more from our service men and women and their families. I ask my colleagues to place themselves in the position of a young enlisted person stationed halfway around the globe. How can this young man concentrate on his critically important national defense job if he is worried about his wife having to deal with broken pipes or his children living in a cold, damp home? Our service men and women are often placed in tense situations in charge of multimillion-dollar pieces of highly technical military equipment. We only help to distract them from their duties of national defense if we do not assure them that their families are being taken care of and their families are living in decent housing. I truly fear the long-term consequences of the lack of attention and funding devoted to maintaining adequate housing for our Nation's military. I fear many bright young men and women will opt not to enter the military when they see the lack of resources devoted to meeting their basic family needs. The military today is much different than it was when I served nearly 30 years ago. Today, most members of the military are married with families. They all volunteer to serve this country. They volunteer for many reasons. They do not expect to be treated in any special way, but they should have the right to expect decent housing for their families. Today's military is a high-technology military, Mr. President. It needs to be capable of responding rapidly to a variety of situations throughout the world. We need our best and our brightest young men and women to serve. But we will not attract or retain them if we are unwilling to invest in them and their families. Mr. President, I intend to be very vocal on this issue. I have already spoken to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning about this issue. We must begin placing a higher priority in the defense budget on taking care of our people. These are the people who protect America's freedoms. Freedom is not free. In fact, we need to place a higher priority for total defense spending in the overall budget. In many ways we live in a world today of greater uncertainty and danger than the one we have known for the last 50 years. If we expect our military to respond to all these challenges, if we expect our service men and women to risk their lives defending America, and America's interests, then we must match those expectations with appropriate funding for an acceptable standard of living for them. The foundation of our military is the men and women who serve. That is the very foundation of our society--our people, our families. Our military is no different. Our military is the guarantor of American foreign policy and the protector of all our freedoms. Just as a house built on sand will soon crumble, our military might cannot stand strong without committed good men and women. If we are unwilling to invest in these men and women we will pay a heavy price, a very heavy price, a price far greater than budgetary numbers. Mr. President, I have written to the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee today, as well as our former colleague, the distinguished Defense Secretary, Bill Cohen, on this issue. I intend to be very involved working with my colleagues on this matter. Let us do the right thing. Let us do the right thing for our people. Let us find ways to fix this problem. We owe it to the men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the U.S. military. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters and the article I mentioned from the Omaha World-Herald be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield my time.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I would like to join with so many of my colleagues in opposing this resolution requested by President Clinton. There are several reasons why I believe it would be wrong for the Congress to accelerate funding for international population control programs. It is the wrong thing to do fiscally, and it is the wrong thing to do on its own merits. For the past 3 weeks, the U.S. Senate has been debating the need for a balanced budget amendment. And now, as one of the Congress' first acts, we are considering spending an additional $123 million in fiscal year 1997 for international population control? Second, does it make sense for us to be accelerating spending on this extraordinarily controversial program without the kind of sensible protections that existed during the Reagan and Bush administrations? Mr. President, despite the claims to the contrary by the other side, this is a vote that involves the issue of abortion. That is because this vote involves U.S. taxpayers funding of organizations that perform and promote abortions overseas. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, our international family planning programs were administered under the Mexico City policy, so-named after the 1984 U.N. population conference in Mexico City where this U.S. policy was formulated. Under the Mexico City policy, this program was kept entirely separate from the issue of abortion. This was accomplished by requiring that U.S. family planning programs overseas could only be administered by private groups that do not conduct abortions, or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Because we all know that money is fungible, funding abortion- promoting groups to conduct family planning programs overseas permitted these groups to extend their international presence, increase their abortion activities, and lobby more aggressively to weaken laws restricting abortion overseas. The Reagan/Bush policies helped protect our international family planning programs from the controversy that inevitably arose through their association with private pro-abortion groups. With the protection of the Mexico City policy, funding for our international family planning programs increased from $251 million in 1987 to $434 million in 1993. One of President Clinton's first actions after his inauguration in 1993, however, was to rescind the Executive order that put the Mexico City policy in place. Because of the President's action, suddenly this once again became one of our most controversial foreign aid programs. This Congress has an opportunity to reinstate the sensible family planning policies of Mexico City. I commend my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, for his leadership in introducing legislation that would return family-planning funding to the principles set forth by Presidents Reagan and Bush. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. There is a reason why last fall's Omnibus Appropriations Act delayed expenditures for this program so that some of the expenditures of the money would not actually be spent until next year. This was the result of a delicate compromise between the Congress and the administration. The administration was offered the choice. The Congress was willing to lift all restrictions on the rate of spending for overseas family planning funds, but only if the administration would refrain from funneling those funds through abortion advocacy groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I would note that the Clinton administration preferred to keep funding restrictions in place so that it could continue administering the program through pro-abortion groups. Now the administration wants to undo this compromise. The administration wants all funding restrictions lifted. At the same time, they refuse to accept the sensible Reagan/Bush policies that protected this program from the contentious abortion debate. Groups supporting this resolution have argued that a more rapid expenditure of these funds by groups that perform abortions and lobby aggressively for abortion-on-demand laws would, in the long term, reduce the rate of abortions around the world. This Senator, however, fails to understand the logic of funding pro-abortion groups to advance this pro-life objective. It is a simple fact that the rate of abortions increases dramatically whenever a country legalizes abortion. I do not believe sending more U.S. taxpayer dollars to an international network of clinics run by groups that conduct abortions is likely to reduce the number of abortions worldwide. Mr. President, the answer to ensuring the long-term health and welfare of women across the world and stabilizing the world's population is not to promote abortion overseas as a population control alternative with U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. The answer is to promote free markets and individual liberties in underdeveloped countries. Over two-thirds of the world's recent fertility decline can be accounted for by the expansion of economic opportunity and personal freedoms, as women across the world are given access to greater educational and lifetime opportunities. Freer markets, more education and information and more opportunities for the world's women--that's the answer. Mr. President, I would gladly vote to remove spending restrictions on this program if the administration would agree to protect it from abuse by pro-abortion advocates. But under the legislative procedures we have before us today, that sensible option is not available. Therefore, I cannot support this resolution, and urge its defeat.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to, again, voice my strong support for Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I might add that there are many ``Bud Hentzens'' in Nebraska, just as my distinguished colleague from Kansas so eloquently stated. The numbers are real. I would like to pick up on my distinguished colleagues' remarks with the following statement: During this debate, we have heard a number of arguments from both sides on the effects of a balanced budget amendment. I believe this debate comes down to one question: Is the balanced budget amendment in the best interest of our children, their children, and the future of America? My answer is ``yes.'' Balancing our Federal budget is critical to ensuring that the American dream lives for our future generations. The real issue behind balancing the budget is our national debt. Mr. President, our national debt has risen to proportions that are virtually unimaginable to most of us. Numbers like $5.3 trillion in present debt, or $7 trillion in debt by the year 2002 are so far beyond the range of the daily lives of most persons that these numbers are easily dismissed. But these numbers cannot be dismissed. These are not just numbers. Each and every dime of our debt represents a burden we are placing squarely on the shoulders of our children. It is our children--our children--whose incomes will be taxed to pay off this debt. It is our children who will have to deal with a limited-growth-in-job-opportunity world because the debt has so constricted this economy that opportunities and possibilities will be severely limited for our children. It is our children who may never be able to purchase their own homes, or send their children to college, because their incomes will be consumed with high taxes to pay for an oppressive Government and make payments on the enormous debt that we have run up for them. The balanced budget amendment is no cure-all. Passing it will not save us from the hard choices required to balance this budget. But it will help us get there. It will force Congress to deal with the budget honestly. It will force Congress down a different path than the one it has traveled for 36 of the last 37 years. It will force Congress to balance the budget. Most importantly, it will force Congress to keep the balanced budget--to keep the balanced budget. It will give our future generations the hope and opportunities so that they can determine their own futures and the futures of their children, rather than being held hostage by an undisciplined Congress and an undisciplined Government deciding their futures for them by mortgaging their futures. Creating the kinds of opportunities for our children that we have enjoyed will require the kind of economic growth that should be America's legacy for the 21st century. It will require bold, strong, and imaginative leadership. To get there, we must cut Government spending, cut taxes, and cut regulations. We need to cut the size and scope of Government and allow private and personal initiative to soar. We must bring Government back to the people, where it is accountable. Balancing the budget is critical to this effort. Our children deserve better than a balanced budget based on ``ifs,'' ``buts,'' ``maybes,'' conditional tax cuts, and conditional spending cuts. They deserve the security of knowing Congress is required to balance the budget every year. They deserve to know that Congress will not continue to add to the national debt. They deserve to know that we are not playing shell games and numbers games and word games with their futures. Either we are going to balance the budget or we are not. Let us be honest. Let us be honest with our children and our grandchildren. Let us be honest with this country. Our children deserve better than the hocus-pocus that we have been giving them. Where is our leadership? Where is the leadership in this Congress? Where is the leadership in this body? Where is the courage in this body? And where is the outrage? Where is the outrage in the U.S. Congress for what we are doing and what we have done to the children of this country? We must get control of the Federal budget and America's fiscal policy. We must enforce lasting fiscal discipline on the Congress of the United States. A balanced budget amendment ensures that we will balance the budget for years to come. Regardless of who is President, regardless of which party controls the Congress, the balanced budget amendment would be a nonpartisan enforcer of controlled Federal spending and responsible fiscal policy. We owe our children no less. We owe our children more than flimsy promises and optimistic assumptions. We owe it to them to make a lasting commitment to balance the budget of the United States for years to come. They deserve no less than the same opportunities that were afforded each of us. In fact, Mr. President, they deserve greater opportunities to succeed just as our opportunities exceeded those of our parents. That has been the legacy of every American generation. That is the magic of America. That is the greatness of America. The only way to ensure this commitment to our children, the only way to make sure our promises are not undone, is to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. President, thank you, and I yield my time. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am cosponsoring S. 251, a measure that will provide farmers and ranchers with a valuable tool-- income averaging--to help manage their agricultural operations, improve profitability, and reduce the tax burden on a crucial Nebraska livelihood. I commend Senator Shelby, the bill's principal sponsor, for his leadership on this matter. Today's Federal Tax Code is hardly a friend to the family farmer. For example, farmers and ranchers do not have access to company or government pensions and retirement plans, in which many other Americans have the ability to participate. Farmers and ranchers will receive fewer Social Security benefits than workers in most other careers since they plow much of their income back into the farm And, as self-employed workers, farmers and ranchers are charged with payroll taxes that are nearly double that of most any other private business employee. Even retirement can be a painful proposition for agricultural producers who have spent their lives building a security nest egg only to be faced with onerous capital gains tax rates and, later, with a confiscatory estate tax when they want to pass their farm along to their children. The American consumer still enjoys the most plentiful food supply at the lowest cost in the developed world--thanks to our Nation's agricultural might. Population growth, rising per capita incomes, expanded trade opportunities, along with new production and marketing technologies, are a few of the reasons why the future of American agriculture is so bright. However, flexibility in our U.S. Tax Code is still needed to strengthen our position as the world's leader in production agriculture. Before 1986, agricultural producers were allowed to average their income over a 2-year period, which allowed greater flexibility in both profit potential and management decisions. This tax management tool was repealed in the 1986 tax reform bill, but the need for this instrument to reduce the farm tax burden still remains. A fairer and more equitable tax policy will also have a profound effect upon the creation and sustainment of jobs in rural America. The economic vitality of our rural communities continues to hinge on the success of our agricultural industry. A prosperous rural economy means greater opportunities for the local men and women who sell the farm implements, drive the grain and livestock trucks, deliver the feed and fuel, market the seed and fertilizer, and process the fruits of our harvest so as to maintain our position as the world's most efficient and reliable food supplier. As we continue to move toward a more market-oriented farm program, farm and ranch producers will need to derive a greater proportion of their income from the marketplace--and to retain a greater proportion of their hard-earned income through tax relief. Income averaging is clearly a practice that will bring some degree of fairness to the U.S. Tax Code. The current Tax Code adds up to higher taxes, more regulatory burdens, and added retirement worries for Nebraska farmers who labor year in and year out in order to feed and clothe the world. This simply must change. Income averaging is one tool that agricultural producers can utilize to enhance profits and keep rural dollars in rural communities. It's time that Congress properly recognizes the contributions of the family farmers by reducing rather than raising their taxes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I join as a cosponsor of the Congressional Pension Disclosure Act of 1997. I commend Senator Abraham for his leadership in drafting this important legislation. This bill will require that detailed information about the pension of every Member of Congress be published twice a year as a part of a report on Congress that already is required by law. Under our proposal, each report would show how much a Member has contributed to his pension, how much he would receive if he retired, and any other information needed to enable the public to compute the Federal retirement benefits of each Member of Congress. I strongly support this step because the people have a right to know fully and completely how their Congress works and how the congressional pension system works. There should be nothing hidden here. Nothing should be difficult for the people to determine. No calculations of congressional pensions or other benefits should be murky or confusing. This bill will shine some sunlight on the congressional pension system. It will be another step toward restoring the confidence and trust of the American people in our National Legislature and in our system of self-government.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to help ensure stability in Central and Eastern Europe. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution to encourage the NATO expansion process and to put the 105th Congress on record in support of bringing Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia into the alliance. I believe restructuring Europe's post-cold-war security architecture and securing lasting peace and stability throughout the continent constitute one of the great foreign policy challenges of our time. From two world wars to the former Yugoslavia, history has shown that Europe's security problems eventually become America's. Time and again, we have found ourselves confronted with only two options: Choosing to lead and help shape events in Europe, or waiting for events to overtake us as they certainly will. Americans are well-served when America chooses to lead. For half a century, the NATO alliance has been the foundation of European security. It has been the most meaningful multinational security framework in history. NATO will continue to be that foundation for the next half century--but only if America helps lead the alliance to adapt to the new reality in Europe after the end of the cold war. The new reality is that the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are free from oppression and many yearn to align themselves with the West. The new reality is that instability in the lands one author called ``Between East and West'' has replaced invasion from the East as the most likely threat to our allies and to our own interests in Europe. The new reality is that America, Russia, and Europe will all benefit if the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are anchored in the peaceful security that NATO can offer. I am convinced that we must move swiftly to expand the NATO alliance and to rethink our commitment to European security. More than 7 years after the Berlin Wall fell, NATO has yet to take in new members. Congress has consistently supported NATO expansion and has enacted legislation to prepare the nations of Central and Eastern Europe for membership in the alliance. The resolution we are introducing today is designed to push ahead once again. It encourages the President to move quickly. It endorses the idea of embracing new members by the alliance's 50-year anniversary in 1999. It makes plain our belief that our alliance must reach out to work with Russia as friends rather than antagonists. And it names Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia as nations whose membership would contribute to the alliance's security. Those of us who support NATO expansion must be prepared to make the case that it serves America's long-term security interests. This is a debate that must reach far beyond the Halls of Congress. NATO expansion, when it does occur, will require the consent of the Senate. And that will require the support of the American people. It is time for this debate to begin.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me also add my thanks to the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for giving me an opportunity to take his place this afternoon in this debate over the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I rise today to add my strong support for Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I believe Americans want a smaller, less intrusive Federal Government. They want more freedom from the burdens of Government. This is America, a country born from a desire to escape the yoke of oppressive government. Our Founding Fathers did not trust government. They trusted the people. As we approach a new century, we have again reached a turning point in America's history. We have been given a charge, as a nation and as representatives of the people, to work together to prioritize the role of Government, to redefine the role of Government in our lives. How much Government do we want? How much do we want Government to do for us? What do we want Government to do for us? How much Government are we willing to pay for? Reducing the role of the Federal Government will require tough choices. A balanced budget amendment will not make those tough choices and difficult decisions. It is the responsibility of those of us entrusted by the American people in leadership positions in this country to make those tough choices and those difficult decisions. However, a balanced budget amendment will force us to step up to these decisions and help make us better able and disciplined to make those choices necessary to ensure a strong future for this country. The American people are tired of political posturing and partisan rhetoric. They want action. They want results. They want us to do what we said we would do. We are not here to defend the status quo. We are here to solve problems. We are here to ensure that the taxpayers get the most efficient and effective use of their tax dollars. After all, the money we spend is not our money. It is not the Senate's money. It is not the President's money. It is the American people's money. They earned it. They work for it. It is up to us to spend it wisely. And right now the American people do not believe that Washington spends their money wisely. The American people want us to get control of this country's fiscal policy. They want fiscal responsibility. That is why a balanced budget amendment is so important. It will force discipline upon the Congress of the United States, a fiscal discipline that has been absent since 1969, the last time America balanced its budget; 36 of the last 37 budgets in this country have not been balanced. It will force us to be honest with the American people. As our former colleague, Paul Simon, a strong proponent of the balanced budget amendment, wrote just last week in the New York Times: ``Elected officials like to do popular things, and there is no popular way to balance the Federal budget.'' The balanced budget amendment will give us the constitutional discipline to do the right thing. This debate is about accountability. This debate is about responsibility and leadership. It is about restoring the confidence and trust of the American people and their Government. We have all been called upon to provide leadership. There is no bigger challenge facing the future of this country than paying down our enormous national debt. During the debate on the balanced budget amendment there will be numbers and numbers and more numbers. But I ask you to focus on these numbers: America made gross interest payments of $344 billion in fiscal year 1996 on our national debt. That's $344 billion that was not used to improve our schools, strengthen our national defense, protect our environment, or build new transportation systems. And that's just the annual interest. The only thing that we are doing is paying interest on the national debt. We are not even beginning to touch the principal. Each day, we add an average of $700 million to our national debt that already totals $5.3 billion. By the time we reach anyone's plan for a balanced budget, the national debt will be $7 trillion. The national debt that we are leaving for our children and our children and grandchildren is the real issue in this debate. What we are doing in cheating the generations that follow us is immoral. We must put our Government in a position to begin paying down our national debt. We must begin to put our fiscal house in order, or our next generation--and I see young people in the galleries today-- will face a disaster. They will have a limited future because they will have limited opportunities. This debate is about their future, the future of America, the future of our children and their children. It strikes me as ironic, Mr. President, that opponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that it will cause cuts in education, Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. What they fail to tell the American people is that if we do nothing--if we fail to act-- deficits and our debt will continue to rise until there is nothing left in the Federal budget for education, entitlement programs, national defense, or any other programs--including Social Security. The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If we don't act to balance the budget and stop adding to that debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security in jeopardy. Furthermore, exempting Social Security from the balanced budget amendment would actually make Social Security more vulnerable. We are all well aware that Social Security will begin to run a deficit of trillions of dollars early in the next century. Taking Social Security off budget would put it out on a plank all by itself when that time comes. Including Social Security in our total unified budget calculations ensures that Congress will have to deal with this crisis before it hits. How can we take America's largest program off budget? If Congress took Social Security off budget and ran trillions of dollars of deficits in it, Congress could still say that they balanced the budget. That is ludicrous. That is folly. But, more important, it's dishonest. Does anyone truly believe that Social Security will suffer if we balance our budget? Let's get real. Social Security has been, and will continue to be, the highest priority program in the Federal budget. Let me say this as straightforward as I can. The best thing we can do to ensure a sound future for Social Security and America is balance a unified Federal budget. Let's be honest with the American people and say it straight. We have to balance our budget. We cannot continue to pile on to the debt that we are leaving this next generation and then expect them to be competitive in the global economy of the 21st century. If it takes an amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget, we should have one. Our Framers gave us that option. When it was required to do the right thing for the people and the Nation, the Framers gave us amendments to the Constitution to help ensure that we balance our budget, and we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment. So let's get at it. Let's show the American people that we are going to do what we said we would do. The future for our next generations is growth and more economic opportunities for all Americans. Only through growing our economy, cutting taxes, cutting regulation, and cutting Government spending will we be able to pay off our national debt. We cannot delay these decisions any longer. Generation after generation will live with the consequences of our actions or our inactions. Will they live with the crushing debt of our indecision? Or will they look back and say that we did rise to the occasion and to the challenge? Will they say that we faced the deficit and the debt honestly and took action and ensured the survival of the American dream? The magic of America has always been that each generation has done better than the last because it had more opportunities. I do not want to look my 6-year-old and 4-year-old in their eyes in 20 years and say to them that I was a Member of the U.S. Senate, but I didn't do enough to protect their future. I will not allow that to be the legacy of this U.S. Senator, nor do I believe that this is the legacy my distinguished colleagues wish to leave to their children, grandchildren, and America. Thank you, Mr. President.