Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, when I began my first campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1995, I published a booklet entitled ``Where I Stand.'' I wrote it because the first obligation of a candidate is to tell voters what you believe. In that booklet, I wrote: The Social Security system must be preserved, protected, and improved. We have made this covenant with our senior citizens. However, the long-term future of the Social Security system is in peril. If we do not get this issue resolved soon, this Nation faces an entitlement disaster, eroding the trust between grandchildren and grandparents. We must explore every option in order to fix and strengthen our Social Security system. This will require bold leadership. A decade later, those words still define my position on Social Security. Social Security has been one of the most important and successful Government programs in the history of America. Almost every American family over the last 70 years has been touched by Social Security. In signing the Social Security Act of 1935, Franklin Roosevelt said: None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessity to keep a foothold, and that is the kind of protection Americans want. A fundamental point that President Roosevelt made was that Social Security was not intended to replace the personal responsibility of individuals saving for and preparing for their own retirements. Social Security was never intended to be a substitute for a retirement or savings plan. It is a safety net for people. Social Security is an insurance contract that protects the most vulnerable in our society from falling into poverty. But Social Security is actuarially unsustainable with its present commitments to future generations. Today, I am introducing comprehensive Social Security reform legislation. I began my day in Nebraska this morning with some of the people who would be most affected by my bill--America's next generation. It is their generation that will be asked to sustain the future of Social Security. My generation, the baby boom generation, has been the largest and most productive workforce in the history of man. The impending retirement of the 77 million-strong baby boom generation will impact every aspect of our economy, Government, and society--Medicare and Medicaid, health care, our workforce, and our competitive position in a world filled with countries much younger than ours. The next generation of Americans will respond to these challenges as every generation of Americans has responded to challenges--with innovation and hard work. However, my generation has a moral obligation to ensure that future generations do not have to bear an increasingly heavy burden of providing retirement resources for future generations. That is why we must reform Social Security. It is a 1935 model trying to operate in a 21st century world. It will soon be incapable of delivering the promises and resources that it was built to provide 70 years ago. Last week, in testimony before the House Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress to act on modernizing entitlement programs sooner rather than later. He warned that, unless we act now to meet the huge unfunded liabilities facing our entitlement programs, there will be severe economic consequences for our Nation. Chairman Greenspan is right. America's largest entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are on a trajectory that cannot be sustained. For fiscal year 2006, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that 64 percent of the $2.5 trillion Federal budget will be obligated to mandatory spending, of which 42 percent is for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those are tax dollars that are committed--money that cannot be used for anything else. Each year, the percentage of the Federal budget obligated to funding entitlement programs grows larger and larger. The current unfunded liability for Social Security over the next 75 years--this is the horizon that the Social Security Administration uses to calculate benefits and expenditures--is $3.7 trillion. That means over the next 75 years, we are obligated to make the commitments of the retiree benefits a reality. Yet we have $3.7 trillion of debt. We don't know where and how we are going to get that $3.7 trillion. We are now $3.7 trillion in debt in the current obligations over the next 75 years for Social Security. Medicare's unfunded liability is nearly $28 trillion. These liabilities are in addition to America's current national debt of $7.5 trillion. Medicare costs are growing faster than any other Government or entitlement program. As we see health care costs continue to rise, coupled with the growing number of retirees, it will only continue to put more and more pressure on our Federal budget and squeeze out money for important discretionary Government programs such as education, roads, parks, and housing. Last Congress, we passed an enormous expansion of Medicare. I voted against it. I thought it was bad policy and would add hundreds of billions of dollars to an already unsustainable program. I am supportive of efforts to reopen the Medicare reform bill and fix it. But for political reasons, I doubt that will happen soon, although we will be forced to deal with it in the future. The Social Security system is not in crisis today, but there is clearly a crisis on the horizon. In 2018, more money will be paid out of Social Security than comes in. In 2042, the Social Security trust fund will be insolvent. Beyond the next 75 years, there is only a black hole of unfunded liability for future generations. The longer we do nothing, the more difficult it will be to protect Social Security and the promise our Government made to future generations of Americans. This reality is daunting, but there is good news in all of this. The system can be fixed. It is within our power to preserve the Social Security net for this Nation. It has been done before. In 1983, President Reagan worked with congressional Democrats and Republicans to make tough choices and extend the life of Social Security. Dealing with this problem now means less dramatic and difficult choices later. The earlier we confront the reality of the coming crisis, the more options we will have to come up with a wise and sustainable course of action. Allow me to now lay out the main points of the Social Security reform bill that I will introduce today. My bill would ensure the vitality of Social Security for future generations. There are no easy choices to fix the demographic challenges and realities facing Social Security. Understanding this, we must make choices that address the problem responsibly and fairly. My bill would make changes to Social Security only--only--for those Americans under the age of 45. No American age 45 or older will see a change in Social Security or their benefits. For Americans under 45, my bill would provide the option of voluntary personal accounts. Providing personal accounts is good policy for both the long-term viability of Social Security and for individuals. Government should be about empowering individuals and enhancing personal freedoms and their futures. Personal accounts help do this for those under 45. My bill would continue to provide a guaranteed Social Security benefit from the Social Security trust fund. Under my plan--under any plan--Americans still need the security of knowing that the portion of their Social Security benefits that comes from the traditional Social Security system will be guaranteed. My bill will continue to guarantee survivor and disability benefits as they currently are. Social Security provides benefits for more than 6 million spouses and children of breadwinners who have died prematurely or have become disabled. For these families, their benefits should not be touched. I know something about this. When I was 16 years old, my father died. The Social Security benefits my mother received were critical in helping her raise four young boys in Nebraska. I well remember my mother's relief when that Social Security check arrived each month. We must remember that the first obligation of Social Security is to the most needy Americans. My bill does not raise taxes. I believe we can fix Social Security without raising taxes. We need to begin reforming Government programs so they do not become so large and so expensive that future taxpayers will be unable to pay for them. Young wage earners and small businesses are the most vulnerable to tax increases, and they would be the ones most adversely affected by higher taxes to save Social Security. Additionally, whenever we increase the cost of labor, we hurt our competitive position in the world and make job creation more difficult. This is not abstract economic theory; it is reality that has an impact on every future American. Those are the principles that form the foundation of the bill I will introduce today. Here is how it would work. Upon passage of the bill, Americans 44 and younger would be given two voluntary options. One, they can invest 4 percent of their payroll tax into a personal investment account modeled on the same accounts now offered to all Federal Government employees. I participate and my staff participates in this program. The remainder of their payroll tax contribution would continue to go into the traditional Social Security system. Option 2, individuals can continue to invest their entire payroll tax in the traditional Social Security system. If they choose the personal account option, then individuals will be able to invest in the same five funds that collectively make up the current Federal Thrift Savings Plan--again, the program that I am in, Members of Congress are in, and Federal Government employees are in. The first is the common stock index fund. Over the last 10 years, this fund has earned an average annual rate of return of 11.99 percent. The second fund is the fixed income index investment fund. Over the last 10 years, this fund has earned an average annual rate of return of 7.72 percent. The third is the Government securities investment fund, and over the last 10 years, it has earned an average annual rate of return of 5.75 percent. The fourth is the small capitalization index. Over the last 10 years, it has earned an average annual rate of return of 11.84 percent. Fifth is the international stock index fund. Over the last 10 years, it has earned an average annual rate of return of 5.45 percent. These five funds provide a range of excellent investment options. My bill would also provide a default account for those Americans who, for whatever reason, do not want to deal with choosing a fund or funds for their accounts. This fund would invest differently in an individual's early working years than in their later working years. The Thrift Savings Plan has been a success for Government employees. Last year, returns on the different accounts ranged from just over 4 percent to 20 percent, and in the last 10 years, the returns have been between 5.5 and 12 percent. Compare this with the 3-percent return provided by Treasury bonds that Social Security now invests in today. These private accounts are in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefits and personal savings pensions and retirement account programs individuals build up during their working years. Under my bill, personal accounts would be administered by a board within the Social Security Administration called the Social Security investment board. The board would be composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and two Senate-confirmed appointments nominated by the President. One of the President's appointments would serve as chairman of the board. Upon retirement, those who choose to enroll in a personal account will have two accounts: their personal account and their traditional Social Security benefits account. They will be required to convert a portion of their personal account to an annuity which, when added to their guaranteed Social Security, would be at least 135 percent of poverty. There is no such guarantee in our Social Security system today. The remainder of the personal account will be theirs to spend as they wish. It could be used to help with health care costs and retirement living costs, or it could even help an account holder's children or grandchildren put a downpayment on a home or pay college tuition. There are those who say that allowing individuals to invest through personal accounts is too risky. Their concerns are serious, and they deserve a serious response. Under my plan, no person is required to have a personal account. An individual who does not want to invest can keep all of their money in the traditional Social Security system. I believe the policies which enhance personal freedom and responsibility encourage the ethic of saving and limit the role of Government in their lives. These are the policies which will be more flexible and successful for America's future. It is true that there is no guarantee with market-based investments; however, the historic success of markets is not a theory, it is a fact. Columnist George Will pointed out in a recent Washington Post column that in no 15-year period over the past eight decades has the growth of stocks ever been negative. In no 20-year period has the average growth been less than 3 percent, which exceeds the rate of return on Social Security assets today. This includes down times, significant down periods in the stock market. We are blessed in America. We are blessed in America because the vast majority of Americans live healthier, longer lives than they did a few decades ago. Continued advances in medicine, education, and personal health will continue to increase not only the length of our lives, but also the quality of our lives, providing opportunities for older Americans to remain healthy, vital, and productive members of the workforce. When Social Security was created in 1935, there were too many workers and not enough jobs. According to the Social Security Administration, in 1950, there were 16.5 workers per retiree. Incentives were created to move people out of the workforce. This dynamic is changing. Today there are 3.3 workers for every retiree. In 25 years, there will be about 2 workers for each retiree. Why is this important? This is important because Social Security is a transfer program. The money comes in and the payroll taxes from the workers go out at the end of the month to the retirees. So when there are less workers, there is less money coming into the system. My bill makes three adjustments to Social Security that will make it solvent for future generations. First, my bill would raise the current full benefit retirement age by 1 year from 67 to 68. Second, my bill would maintain the current earlier retirement age at 62 but would adjust benefits for those who choose to retire early. Currently, workers who retire early today receive 70 percent of their full retirement benefits. My bill will provide these early retirees with 63 percent of the traditional benefits. Third, currently an individual's base Social Security benefit is determined by two factors: their average income over 35 years and the wage index. My bill adds a third component, life expectancy. We are living longer. That means as we live longer, we will draw more from the Social Security fund. Over the life of the program Social Security benefit calculations have never been adjusted to reflect increased life expectancy. By factoring increased life expectancy into the base benefit calculation, the rate of increase in benefit payments will be slow. No other changes will be made to the annual consumer price indexing of benefit increases. In addition to making Social Security solvent, these adjustments can help confront the challenges of increasing Medicare costs and shortages in the workforce. It is important to protect the option of early retirement, but our laws need to encourage individuals to stay in the workforce, not leave it. Medicare costs, Medicaid costs, and labor shortages can be significantly reduced by keeping people healthy, vital, happy, and productive in the workforce. My bill pays for these changes in Social Security by using the existing $3.7 trillion unfunded liability to ensure the long-term health of the Social Security system. Doing nothing will mean at the end of 75 years, Social Security will have chewed up $3.7 trillion in taxpayer money to help keep Social Security solvent, but it will not, and we will still have an insolvent program with trillions of dollars more of unfunded liabilities staring us in the face. In recent testimony before the Senate, Alan Greenspan said Social Security's total unfunded liability could be as high as $10 trillion over the life of the program. I have introduced this bill because I believe that leaders have a responsibility to deal with the great challenges of their time, not defer them, not make excuses for them, but to try to fix them and come up with solutions. I do not hold my bill up as the only way to address the solvency of Social Security. It is one way. There may be better ways. No comprehensive bill will be immune from critical evaluation, nor should it be. However, I think my bill is a commonsense, responsible, and fiscally accountable place to start. All Americans need to ask tough questions about the future of Social Security. We need to begin the process of refining ideas to forge the best, most responsible policy for the future of Social Security. President Bush deserves great credit for making the modernization of Social Security a central part of his second-term agenda. There is no possibility for success in modernizing Social Security without strong Presidential leadership. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Social Security is one of the most important and successful Government programs in American history. Since 1935, it has provided a safety net for our society's most vulnerable. We have a high moral obligation to ensure that future generations continue to benefit from this safety net and social contract we have with our citizens. But in order to do this, we must fix the system. This is a personal issue for me. Forty years from now a young mother in Columbus, NE, may be left to raise four children on her own. I want her family to have the same access to the same safety net that my family had, and the promise that no matter where one starts in life, with a little help they can finish where they want. I am 58 years old. I am at the front of the baby boom generation. My daughter is 14 years old. My son is 12 years old. I do not want to fail their generation. That means addressing these entitlement program issues now, while we have time to do it in a wise, careful, and responsible way. This is a defining debate for today's leaders. Doing nothing is irresponsible and cowardly. It is in America's interest to deal with our challenge today. We have it in us to do what needs to be done. We can preserve, protect, and improve Social Security for all future generations of Americans. I send my bill to the desk and ask that it be assigned to the appropriate committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the size of the United States Army by 30,000 troops and the United States Marine Corps by 5,000 Marines. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker testified that the current Army endstrength of 502,400 troops is adequate to fight the Global War on Terrorism if the Army National Guard and Army Reserve can sustain the current active-duty force. Our current over-dependence on Army National Guard and Army Reserve mobilization is irresponsible policy. This policy threatens to break the United States Army and severely damage our national security. America should not leverage its security interests upon a Reserve and National Guard force that is already over-stressed and over-burdened. There are 100,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard mobilized and serving on active duty. An additional 50,000 Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized. Many of these reservists are in critical specialty areas and are completing 2 years on active-duty. The Global War on Terrorism began almost 3\1/2\ years ago. Since then, the active-duty Army has grown 5 percent, while the demands placed on our soldiers have skyrocketed. LTG Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, recently testified to Congress that almost 50 percent of the Army's available manpower is deployed. The bulk of our active-duty combat soldiers are currently in a cycle of deployment that includes 1 year in Iraq or Afghanistan followed by 1 year at home. The Marine Corps has shortened the cycle to 7 months deployed and 7 months at home. However, these soldiers and Marines are no longer spending time with their families. Instead, their time at home is spent training and preparing to redeploy. These deployment cycles are just as demanding for our National Guard and Reserve personnel. GEN James Helmly, Commander of the Army Reserve, has told the Pentagon leadership that current personnel and deployment policy threatens to permanently damage the Army Reserve's recruitment and retention. This policy is not sustainable. It must be changed. In order to effectively meet the global challenges of the 21st century, our efforts must assure Americans that the Army and Marines have a sufficient number of full time, highly trained and fully qualified personnel to do the job. The Army has over 500,000 soldiers on active duty today. By the end of this year the Army will have over 510,000 soldiers. Later this year the Marine Corps will have over 178,000 Marines on active duty. Yet the Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission only pays for 482,400 soldiers and 175,000 Marines. The Department of Defense, DoD, has chosen not to fund known costs and instead has deferred an increase in Army endstrength to upcoming supplemental appropriations requests. The leaders of our Armed Forces must have realistic funding in order to conduct realistic wartime planning and execution. The Congress and the American people expect DoD to tell us what our real National Security costs are. In previous years, Senator Reed and I have introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. In 2003, our first effort to increase Army endstrength by 10,000 troops was simply dismissed by the Pentagon. Last year, our second effort to increase the size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers resulted in compromise legislation to add 20,000 soldiers to the Army and 3,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. The Pentagon has essentially ignored this provision in last year's Defense Authorization Bill by not funding the increased personnel in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget. The legislation Senator Reed and I introduce today will establish a U.S. Army endstrength of 532,400, which is 30,000 soldiers higher than current levels. It will also establish a U.S. Marine Corps endstrength of 183,000 or an additional 5,000 Marines. Our legislation requires DoD to make these new endstrength levels permanent and requires DoD to pay for it in their annual budgets. Our effort to increase the endstrength of the Army and the Marines is not a choice between increased manpower versus critical recapitalization, modernization, research, and military construction needs. DoD must have both fully funded. Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.'' The Congress must exercise its responsibility to ensure that our Army and Marine Corps remain the best led, best trained, best equipped and most professional fighting force in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the size of the United States Army by 30,000 troops and the United States Marine Corps by 5,000 Marines. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker testified that the current Army endstrength of 502,400 troops is adequate to fight the Global War on Terrorism if the Army National Guard and Army Reserve can sustain the current active-duty force. Our current over-dependence on Army National Guard and Army Reserve mobilization is irresponsible policy. This policy threatens to break the United States Army and severely damage our national security. America should not leverage its security interests upon a Reserve and National Guard force that is already over-stressed and over-burdened. There are 100,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard mobilized and serving on active duty. An additional 50,000 Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized. Many of these reservists are in critical specialty areas and are completing 2 years on active-duty. The Global War on Terrorism began almost 3\1/2\ years ago. Since then, the active-duty Army has grown 5 percent, while the demands placed on our soldiers have skyrocketed. LTG Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, recently testified to Congress that almost 50 percent of the Army's available manpower is deployed. The bulk of our active-duty combat soldiers are currently in a cycle of deployment that includes 1 year in Iraq or Afghanistan followed by 1 year at home. The Marine Corps has shortened the cycle to 7 months deployed and 7 months at home. However, these soldiers and Marines are no longer spending time with their families. Instead, their time at home is spent training and preparing to redeploy. These deployment cycles are just as demanding for our National Guard and Reserve personnel. GEN James Helmly, Commander of the Army Reserve, has told the Pentagon leadership that current personnel and deployment policy threatens to permanently damage the Army Reserve's recruitment and retention. This policy is not sustainable. It must be changed. In order to effectively meet the global challenges of the 21st century, our efforts must assure Americans that the Army and Marines have a sufficient number of full time, highly trained and fully qualified personnel to do the job. The Army has over 500,000 soldiers on active duty today. By the end of this year the Army will have over 510,000 soldiers. Later this year the Marine Corps will have over 178,000 Marines on active duty. Yet the Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission only pays for 482,400 soldiers and 175,000 Marines. The Department of Defense, DoD, has chosen not to fund known costs and instead has deferred an increase in Army endstrength to upcoming supplemental appropriations requests. The leaders of our Armed Forces must have realistic funding in order to conduct realistic wartime planning and execution. The Congress and the American people expect DoD to tell us what our real National Security costs are. In previous years, Senator Reed and I have introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. In 2003, our first effort to increase Army endstrength by 10,000 troops was simply dismissed by the Pentagon. Last year, our second effort to increase the size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers resulted in compromise legislation to add 20,000 soldiers to the Army and 3,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. The Pentagon has essentially ignored this provision in last year's Defense Authorization Bill by not funding the increased personnel in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget. The legislation Senator Reed and I introduce today will establish a U.S. Army endstrength of 532,400, which is 30,000 soldiers higher than current levels. It will also establish a U.S. Marine Corps endstrength of 183,000 or an additional 5,000 Marines. Our legislation requires DoD to make these new endstrength levels permanent and requires DoD to pay for it in their annual budgets. Our effort to increase the endstrength of the Army and the Marines is not a choice between increased manpower versus critical recapitalization, modernization, research, and military construction needs. DoD must have both fully funded. Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.'' The Congress must exercise its responsibility to ensure that our Army and Marine Corps remain the best led, best trained, best equipped and most professional fighting force in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Durbin to introduce the Public Health Preparedness Workforce Development Act of 2005. This legislation aims to increase the pipeline of qualified public health workers at the Federal, State, local and tribal levels by offering scholarships to students going into the public health field. It also encourages current professionals to stay in the public health field by providing loan repayments in exchange for a commitment of a designated number of years of service in public health. The average age of lab technicians, epidemiologists, environmental health experts, microbiologists, IT specialists, public health administrators and others who make up the public health workforce is 47, seven years older than the average age of the Nation's workforce. Over the next five years, my State of Nebraska will have more public health workers who are eligible for retirement than any other state in the Nation. To encourage young people to enter the public health field, this legislation authorizes $35 million per year for scholarships and $195 million per year for loan repayments. Eighty percent of the funds would be dedicated for state and local public health workers, with bonus payments available to those who agree to be placed in under-served areas. There are critical public health workforce shortages. We cannot afford to lose so many experienced workers just when our public health workforce should be expanding to meet increasing health needs. The ability of the public health system to respond to emerging infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, food-borne illnesses, or bioterrorism relies on a well-trained, adequately staffed public health network at all levels. It is important that we address this problem before it becomes a crisis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Durbin to introduce the Public Health Preparedness Workforce Development Act of 2005. This legislation aims to increase the pipeline of qualified public health workers at the Federal, State, local and tribal levels by offering scholarships to students going into the public health field. It also encourages current professionals to stay in the public health field by providing loan repayments in exchange for a commitment of a designated number of years of service in public health. The average age of lab technicians, epidemiologists, environmental health experts, microbiologists, IT specialists, public health administrators and others who make up the public health workforce is 47, seven years older than the average age of the Nation's workforce. Over the next five years, my State of Nebraska will have more public health workers who are eligible for retirement than any other state in the Nation. To encourage young people to enter the public health field, this legislation authorizes $35 million per year for scholarships and $195 million per year for loan repayments. Eighty percent of the funds would be dedicated for state and local public health workers, with bonus payments available to those who agree to be placed in under-served areas. There are critical public health workforce shortages. We cannot afford to lose so many experienced workers just when our public health workforce should be expanding to meet increasing health needs. The ability of the public health system to respond to emerging infectious diseases like West Nile Virus, food-borne illnesses, or bioterrorism relies on a well-trained, adequately staffed public health network at all levels. It is important that we address this problem before it becomes a crisis. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon which to build an effective climate policy. I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act. Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy of the magnitude of the challenge. We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we should take action, but what kind of action we should take. Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of energy and resources. My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It focuses on the role of technology, private and public partnerships, and developing countries. Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global issue. Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement for dealing with climate change. Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy efficiency, economic development, and the environment. The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity. It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue. It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States. The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the solution. In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless two conditions were met. First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.'' Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol. A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this. Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future initiative. Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been through. My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and fuel-efficient technologies. Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and power production incentive payments. We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry. This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects. Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the coast of Australia. The article reports that: the concept is drawing growing interest because it could curb global warming more quickly than switching to alternative energy sources or cutting energy use. There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of this type of activity. The American people and all global citizens need to better understand global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the demands of economic growth and development, especially in the developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and connects the public and private sectors. Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on achievable climate change policy. By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future for all people, and build a better world. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon which to build an effective climate policy. I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act. Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy of the magnitude of the challenge. We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we should take action, but what kind of action we should take. Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of energy and resources. My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It focuses on the role of technology, private and public partnerships, and developing countries. Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global issue. Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement for dealing with climate change. Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy efficiency, economic development, and the environment. The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity. It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue. It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States. The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the solution. In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless two conditions were met. First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.'' Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol. A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this. Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future initiative. Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been through. My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and fuel-efficient technologies. Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and power production incentive payments. We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry. This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects. Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the coast of Australia. The article reports that: the concept is drawing growing interest because it could curb global warming more quickly than switching to alternative energy sources or cutting energy use. There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of this type of activity. The American people and all global citizens need to better understand global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the demands of economic growth and development, especially in the developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and connects the public and private sectors. Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on achievable climate change policy. By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future for all people, and build a better world. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of Frederick Douglass as we celebrate his 187th birthday this month. Frederick Douglass was an American who devoted his life to enacting permanent and positive change for all Americans by advocating the abolition of slavery and equal rights for women. Born into slavery in 1818 and abandoned by his mother, Frederick Douglass rose above a debilitating situation to become one of America's greatest abolitionists and orators. He escaped slavery when he was 20 years old by disguising himself as a sailor. Mr. Douglass traveled north and settled in New Bedford, MA where he discovered the profound impact his oratory and literary talents had on others. Always believing in himself and taking advantage of every opportunity he could, Frederick Douglass set an example for all Americans by working toward a greater purpose and racial equality. He became a respected advisor to President Lincoln, he traveled extensively in Europe to speak about his experience in America, and he inspired those he encountered to fight for better lives for African Americans and women. We are grateful for Frederick Douglass' life and work.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Sununu and Dole, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high. The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages. The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt. It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement. At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency. Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would: Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected. This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Sununu and Dole, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high. The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages. The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt. It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement. At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency. Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would: Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected. This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Bush's nominee for Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. Hers is a remarkable personal story, from her upbringing in Birmingham, AL, during the era of Bull Connor, to the White House, to her nomination as Secretary of State. She is a woman of many parts, an accomplished musician, a leading academic and policy intellectual, and a dedicated public official. This is a nomination all of America can be proud of. Dr. Rice has served with distinction as assistant to the President for national security, as well as in other National Security Council positions. She comes to this job well-qualified and prepared to take on her new responsibilities. America's challenges over the next four years will be formidable. U.S. foreign policy cannot be separated from our energy, economic, defense and domestic policies. It all falls within the ``arch of our national interest.'' There will be windows of opportunity, but they will open and close quickly. Foreign policy will require a strategic agility that, whenever possible, gets ahead of problems, strengthens U.S. security and alliances, and promotes American interests, credibility, and global freedom. Last week, Dr. Rice faced approximately 11 hours of probing and difficult questions about U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq. Dr. Rice deserves credit for her thoughtful answers, patience, and I might say, grace under that questioning. In her testimony, Dr. Rice said that, ``the time for diplomacy is now.'' She understands that our success in the war on terrorism, Iraq, the Middle East, and throughout the world depends on the strength of our alliances. Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and value with all nations. Dr. Rice also noted that, ``America and all free nations are facing a generational struggle against a new and deadly ideology of hatred that we cannot ignore.'' She stressed the importance of public diplomacy to counter this ideology of hate, including increasing our exchanges with the rest of the world. A unilateralist course would only complicate our relations with the Muslim world. Dr. Rice's nomination has offered an opportunity for the Senate to consider not only the merits of the nominee, but the foreign policy challenges that we face. The Senate should be a forum for debate about foreign policy. The former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright, observed that the Congress has a: traditional responsibility, in keeping with the spirit if not the precise words of the Constitution, to serve as a forum of diverse opinions and as a channel of communication between the American people and their government. Chairman Lugar's distinguished leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee has been in concert with the former chairman's words. Senator Fulbright received criticism for holding public hearings on Vietnam, especially with a President of his own party in office. He later wrote that he held those hearings: in the hope of helping to shape a true consensus in the long run, even at the cost of dispelling the image of a false one in the short run. The Senate should not be party to a false consensus on Iraq. The stakes are too high. America is fighting a counter-insurgency war in a complicated and diverse region, in a country with an intense and long standing anti- colonial tradition, deep ethnic and sectarian divisions, and a political system and culture brutalized for more than three decades by a tyrannical dictatorship, more than a decade of international sanctions, and three costly wars. America's exit strategy for Iraq is linked to the capabilities of the Iraqi government and security forces to take responsibility for their future. That has not yet happened. Iraq may be free, but it is not yet stable, secure, or governable. Since Iraq's liberation, American and coalition forces are what have held the country together. Despite the sacrifice and courage of our brave men and women fighting in Iraq, and the sacrifice and courage of many Iraqis, the Iraqi state cannot yet reliably deliver services or security to its people. The elections on January 30 will be a critical benchmark for Iraqi sovereignty. Elections alone will not bring stability and security to Iraq. But they are an essential and historic step. All Americans should be concerned about what is happening in Iraq. Iraq will influence and constrain America's foreign policy for years to come. It is our top foreign policy priority, and there are no easy answers or easy options. Hopefully, Iraq will someday be a democratic example for the Middle East. But Iraq could also become a failed state. We cannot let this happen. These are big issues that will affect every American in some way. The Senate is an appropriate forum to debate our policies that will be applied to dealing with these issues. To sustain any foreign policy will require the informed consent of the American people through their voices in Congress. Dr. Rice understands this clearly. Let me conclude by once again noting that Dr. Rice has the intelligence, experience, and integrity for this job. She has the President's confidence. In my interactions and conversations with Dr. Rice over the last four years, she has always been candid and honest, and she listens. It is also important that Dr. Rice always be brutally frank with the President. She must give him the bad news as well as the good news, and when she disagrees with other members of the Cabinet and the President and Vice President, she must say so. I believe she will do that. I look forward to working with Dr. Rice in support of American interests and security. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of her nomination.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I will require no more than 3 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise, as was noted, to recognize and pay tribute to and remember our dear friend Howard Liebengood. I thought the majority leader's comments concerning Howard Liebengood could have been recited by any and all who knew him. My friendship with Howard Liebengood goes back almost 30 years. When I first became acquainted with Howard and his wife Dee, we would bet on the Kansas State-Nebraska football game every year. I know the Presiding Officer has a passing interest in that game. Howard, each year, would come back for more. These were the days when Kansas State had not defeated Nebraska for many years. But one of the extraordinary parts of this extraordinary man was an optimism, not only about Kansas State football but about life. All that he touched, all he represented, and all who knew him were uplifted by this gentleman, this man who always put his friends first. I recall when Howard and Dee's children were young, I would occasionally go to their home in Vienna for a little chili cookoff. It was not a big group; it was just us. Howard always had the remarkable ability to reach beyond his professional capacity. After all, we are all judged and will be judged by that dynamic at the end of our lives. It will not be for whatever professional accomplishments we have but it will be for what we have done for others and how we are remembered by others, as was noted by the majority leader in his remarks. So, today, as I and others rise on behalf of Howard Liebengood, we celebrate his life and his family and all the light that he brought to so many of us for so long. This dear, dear man, we will miss greatly. But he does leave the world better than he found it.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today is the 32nd Annual March for Life on Washington, DC's National Mall. Individuals from all over the Nation will march together in solidarity, despite the bitterly cold weather, in support of the most basic of human rights: the right to life. The March for Life is an important opportunity to demonstrate a firm and clear commitment to preventing abortion and protecting the rights of each unborn child. Today I met with 35 representatives from Nebraskans United for Life and Creighton University. They are committed to promoting the right to life for all human beings and work tirelessly to ensure that this issue remains at the forefront of debate. I strongly support the efforts of the National Right to Life Committee. The March for Life is a powerful reminder of the progress that has been made and the work that remains for the pro-life cause. Above all, we should focus on education, including the encouragement of abstinence and adoption. Communities, churches, synagogues and families must continue to come together to help provide a strong source of support and counsel for young men and women as they become adults.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Nebraska's Johnny Carson, the 30-year host of the ``Tonight Show'' and a dedicated Nebraska philanthropist. He passed away yesterday at the age of 79 in his Malibu, CA home. Johnny Carson was a Nebraska original and an American icon. He elevated the late night talk show to an art-form and he did it with class and fun. Carson will be remembered as a generous individual who was proud of his State. After serving in the Navy during World War II, Carson attended the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, UNL, and earned a bachelor of arts degree in radio and speech. As a student, Carson practiced his comedy and perfected his ability to perform card and magic tricks. His experiences at UNL greatly influenced his career in entertainment. Carson made many significant contributions to Nebraska. Among them a $2.27 million donation to a cancer radiation center in Norfolk and last November, he donated $5.3 million to UNL to help with the renovation of a building where he took classes. I had the opportunity over the years to meet Carson. In 1967, he returned to Nebraska for the State's Centennial celebration. He was invited by the Governor to headline the gala with his former Omaha radio morning show co-host Harvey Swenson. Swenson was the manager of KLMS radio station in Lincoln, where I worked at the time. Carson came to the station and talked with all of us about his early days in Nebraska radio. After Carson graduated from high school, his parents moved from Norfolk to Columbus, NE, where I lived. I would occasionally see Carson walking his dogs in Columbus when he would visit his parents during the summers. America will miss this good man, Johnny Carson. We are all very proud of him--of what he represented and where he came from. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Johnny Carson.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I first offer my congratulations to the new chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. We are pleased about Senator Chambliss's new assignment and responsibilities. I very much appreciate his taking on these new responsibilities at a time that will be critical for American agriculture as we work our way toward the reform bill, as well as central issues that will face our country directly connected to American agriculture. I rise this afternoon to add my congratulations to the President's nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, the Nebraska Governor, Mike Johanns. I have known Mike Johanns for many years. We have worked very closely over the last few years. He has ably served the State of Nebraska during a difficult time. As the Agriculture Committee noted in its hearings for Governor Johanns, he is eminently qualified. His background is well known. He is prepared, and he will be a very effective Secretary. I might add, one of the reasons many of us are so enthusiastic about Mike Johanns doing this job is that he understands not only American agriculture but he understands trade. He understands geopolitical strategic issues that are connected to our agriculture, our economy, and trade. He understands that these great issues of our time are woven into the same fabric. They are within the great arc of national interest for America. He has the kind of stature and the kind of character that we never see enough of in Washington. For those reasons, and for many others, I am enthusiastic, as are so many of us, about Mike Johanns taking on the job of Secretary of Agriculture. We will miss him in Nebraska. His steady leadership has brought Nebraska through a difficult time of deficits, not unlike other States. He has performed not only well but he has built a value-added system not only in our economy but in our government in Nebraska. He will be succeeded by a very able Lieutenant Governor, Dave Heineman, whom we also wish well. As I conclude, I add my thanks to Secretary Veneman's service to our country and to American agriculture over the last 4 years. She too has had to deal with many of the uncontrollables that are part of that portfolio--a difficult job. She deserves recognition for the kind of job she has done. She has done it just as Mike Johanns will do his job--with class, with dignity, always reaching out to others, as well as working closely with the Congress. The last point I will make is whatever was said by the Senator from Kansas about Nebraska football is not to be taken seriously. Other than that, I think my time is up. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Aaron Holland of Columbus, NE, a lance corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. Lance Corporal Holland was killed in a car accident on December 17, 2004 near Richfield, UT, while returning home to Columbus from his second tour of duty in Iraq. He was 21 years old. Lance Corporal Holland graduated from Columbus High School and is survived by his mother Becky and stepfather Paul Knopick; two stepbrothers, Silas and Paul Knopick; grandparents, Lois and Edmund Mueller; and uncle, Mark Mueller; all of Columbus. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. The United States of America is proud of Aaron Holland's service and mourns his loss. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. fostered Holland's interest in a military career and after graduating in 2002, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. After completing his training, he served with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, CA. Holland served two tours in Iraq, from February to July 2003 and from February to August 2004. Lance Corporal Holland will be remembered as a loyal marine who had a strong sense of duty, honor, and love of country. Thousands of brave Americans like Lance Corporal Holland are currently serving in Iraq. For his service, bravery and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring LCpl Aaron Holland. Private First Class Joshua A. Ramsey

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Nick Nolte of Falls City, NE, a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. Sergeant Nolte died November 24, 2004 at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center from wounds he received on November 9 when his Humvee drove over a bomb near Baghdad, Iraq. He was 25 years old. Sergeant Nolte graduated from Falls City Sacred Heart High School in 1998. After graduating, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and became a member of the Presidential Helicopter Squadron HMX-1, guarding Presidents Clinton and Bush. In June 2004, Nolte joined Operation Iraqi Freedom as a rifleman, Marine and personal security expert. Sergeant Nolte will be remembered as a loyal Marine who believed in his mission and who had a strong sense of duty, honor and love of country. Thousands of brave Americans like Sergeant Nolte are currently serving in Iraq. Sergeant Nolte is survived by his mother, Anita Nolte; his wife, Melina and 3-year-old daughter, Alanna of Cherry Point, NC and sister, Jessica Nolte of Omaha. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. The United States of America is proud of Nick Nolte's service and mourns his loss. For his service, bravery and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Sergeant Nick Nolte. Staff Sergeant Robert S. Doughty

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Shane Kielion of Omaha, NE, a lance corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. Lance Corporal Kielion was killed while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom on November 15, 2004, in Iraq's Al Anbar Province. He was 23 years old. Lance Corporal Kielion attended Omaha South High School where he was a leader both on the football field and in the classroom. After graduating in 1999, he briefly attended Peru State College on a football scholarship before joining the U.S. Marine Corps. He was assigned 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA. Lance Corporal Kielion will be remembered as a loyal marine who had a strong sense of duty, honor, and love of country. Thousands of brave Americans like Lance Corporal Kielion are currently serving in Iraq. Lance Corporal Kielion is survived by his parents, Patricia and Roger Kielion; his wife, April, and their newborn son. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. The United States of America is proud of Shane Kielion's service and mourns his loss. For his service, bravery and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring LCpl Shane Kielion. lcpl kyle burns, USMC

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Edward Iwan of Albion, NE, a 1LT in the United States Army. First Lieutenant Iwan was killed on November 12, 2004 in Fallujah, Iraq when a rocket- propelled grenade hit his Army vehicle. He was 28 years old. First Lieutenant Iwan grew up on his family's farm in Albion and enlisted in the U.S. Army upon graduation from Albion High School in 1994. After serving 3 years, he joined the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps at the University of Nebraska--Lincoln where he earned a degree in criminal justice and received a commission in the U.S. Army. At Lincoln, he was a leader in the ROTC program. First Lieutenant Iwan was a platoon leader in the Army's 2nd Infantry Division who will be remembered as a loyal soldier who had a strong sense of duty, honor, and love of country. Thousands of brave Americans like 1LT Iwan are currently serving in Iraq. Lieutenant Iwan is survived by his parents, Donna and Kenneth Iwan of Albion and two sisters, Ginger and Kate. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time. The United States of America is proud of Edward Iwan's service and mourns his loss. For his service, bravery and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT Edward Iwan.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution recognizing the landmark Presidential elections that took place in Afghanistan on Saturday, October 9, 2004. My colleagues Senators Lugar, Biden, Leahy, McCain, Sununu and Dodd join me as original co-sponsors of this resolution. The Government and people of Afghanistan deserve our praise and recognition for their achievements since the emergency Loya Jirga of June 2002. The process leading to this historic election has not always been easy. Warlords and Taliban members have sought to intimidate voters and disrupt the process. But the government of President Hamid Karzai and the people of Afghanistan have not been deterred. More than 10.5 million Afghan citizens have been reported registered to vote, reflecting the courage and commitment of Afghans to a democratic future. Over 40 percent of those registered are women. The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, P.L. 107-327, expressed the U.S. Congress's support for the development of democratic institutions and a fully representative government in Afghanistan that respects religious freedom and the rights of women. The Presidential election this week is a critical benchmark for America's commitment to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan for responsible governance and a more peaceful future. America's interests in Afghanistan are linked to our wider regional objectives in the war on terrorism, and in promoting security and more open political and economic systems throughout the greater Middle East and Central Asia. Presidnet Bush said on June 15, 2004, that ``the world and the United States stand with [the people of Afghanistan] as partners in their quest for peace and prosperity and stability and democracy.'' I ask the Senate to recognize the historic achievement of the Afghan people in holding Presidential elections this past Saturday, and to join the co-sponsors of this resolution and me in expressing our continued support for the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing the landmark Presidential elections that will take place in Afghanistan this Saturday, October 9, 2004. My colleagues Senators Lugar, R-IN, Biden, D-DE, Leahy, D-VT, McCain, R-AZ, Sununu, R-NH and Dodd, D-CT, join me as original co-sponsors of this resolution. The Government and people of Afghanistan deserve our praise and recognition for their achievements since the emergency Loya Jirga of June 2002. The process leading to this historic election has not always been easy. Warlords and Taliban members have sought to intimidate voters and disrupt the process. But the government of President Hamid Karzai and the people of Afghanistan have not been deterred. More than 10.5 million Afghan citizens have been reported registered to vote, reflecting the courage and commitment of Afghans to a democratic future. Over forty per cent of those registered are women. The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, PL 107-327, authorized the United States Government to provide $3.3 billion in political, economic and security assistance to Afghanistan. It also expressed the U.S. Congress's support for the development of democratic institutions and a fully representative government in Afghanistan that respects religious freedom and the rights of women. The presidential election this week is a critical benchmark for America's commitment to a long- term partnership with Afghanistan for responsible governance and a more peaceful future. America's interests in Afghanistan are linked to our wider regional objectives in the war on terrorism, and in promoting security and more open political and economic systems throughout the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. President Bush said on June 15, 2004, that ``the world and the United States stand with [the people of Afghanistan] as partners in their quest for peace and prosperity and stability and democracy.'' I ask the Senate to recognize the historic achievement of the Afghan people in holding presidential elections this week, and to join the co- sponsors of this resolution and me in expressing our continued support for the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Military Death Gratuity Improvement Act of 2004.'' This legislation would raise the military death gratuity paid to the families of military personnel killed while on active duty from $12,000 to $50,000. This increase would also be applied retroactively to all service members on active duty who have died since September 11, 2001. The military death gratuity is money provided within 72 hours to families of service members who are killed while on active duty. These funds assist next-of-kin with their immediate financial needs. As we face the challenges of the 21st Century, servicemen and women sacrificing for their country in a time of war should be assured that their families will be taken care of. The loss of a loved one is a tremendous emotional hardship for families. Congress must do what it can to ensure that it does not cause devastating financial hardship as well. This bill will help alleviate some of the financial hardships faced by the families of our brave servicemen and women who give their lives in service to our country. It will send a message to our brave young men and women and their families that their Nation appreciates their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.