Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to make note of a report that came out today that is one, I think, we are going to be seeing and hearing quite a bit more about in the U.S. Senate. It was a report of the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues. I rise today to briefly comment on the status of the report and the testimony that was submitted today by the members of the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, a hearing that took place in the House Armed Services Committee. While not the final report of this commission, the initial report does give indications as to their findings and, I think, warrants some discussion in the U.S. Senate. A number of Members will recall, last year we had a spirited discussion about gender-integrated barracks during basic training. The discussion was centered around issues of, is this the most effective way to train our young men and women in the services, to have gender- integrated barracks? These are young men and women just entering into the military. They are going through basic training. There are a lot of difficult issues that they are facing, as they are being trained into a fighting force. Then on top of that, we put them in the same barracks together at night, after they have been side by side during the day. Ask yourself, are you going to be asking for problems if you have got young men and women who are put into the same barracks, right after a long day, next to each other with not a lot of other diversions at night? We have had, unfortunately, a report of many instances of sexual harassment that have taken place, and worse, in these gender-integrated barracks. I am not speaking about basic training. I am talking about the barracks. The report that came out today notes some progress in improving that sexual harassment and other problems that we have experienced with gender-integrated barracks during basic training, but it still invites the question of, why do we even ask for any problems at all? They are saying, the problem level is down, but why are we asking for problems at all by having these integrated barracks during basic training? Why don't we separate the genders during basic training? That was the point that a number of us made last year. A lot of people thought, let's put it off until this report. The report notes we have some progress, but we still have problems. I think this hearing that was held today and the preliminary report that was issued merit a full hearing taking place in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee to review this very issue. Is this the best way? Is this the right way, and is this the way that is leading to more problems than we need to confront of the current policy of integrating the sexes in their barracks during basic training? I think not. We will continue to have problems we just do not need to invite. I hope that the Senate will take this on as a serious problem as we start to deal with the report that comes out today.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my support for S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. As an original cosponsor, I want to impress upon the Members of the Senate that now is the time for passage of this bill. For over 200 years, the United States has been fortunate to enjoy a high level of security provided by, among other things, our geographic location. In the past, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have served well in preventing a direct attack on the United States. However, as we approach the twenty-first century and new technology, we find that the proliferation of missile technology has taken this geographic sanctuary away from us. S. 257 will establish that it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective national missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack. This bill focuses on one important factor for conditioning deployment: technological capability. Other important factors exist including cost, threat, and treaty commitments. These factors, while important, should not be the final determining factor in deciding on national policy to deploy a missile defense. I am concerned about the cost of such a weapon system and will continue to carefully monitor the costs of a NMD system. However, with this bill, we are not just addressing concerns about protecting America's interests around the globe, but about protecting the American homeland itself. We are not talking about foreign lands and obscure interests, or about some distant, remote, or highly unlikely threat. We are talking about preventing ballistic missiles from shattering the communities in which we all live--we are talking about protecting our families, our cities, and our nation from potential destruction at the hands of a rogue regime anywhere around the world. The threat of a ballistic missile attack on the United States is real. We face a growing threat from rogue nations which have increased their capabilities due to increased access to missile technology; as demonstrated by the recent successful flight test demonstrations of North Korea, and the flow of technology from Russia to Iran. These countries are making investments to do one thing--intimidate their neighboring states, the U.S. and our allies. For example, North Korea is working hard on the Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2) ballistic missile. Our national technical experts have determined this missile can reach major cities and military bases in Alaska. They further state that lightweight variations of this missile could reach 6,200 miles; placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin. This includes my home state of Kansas. As if that weren't enough, North Korea poses an additionally even greater threat to the United States, because it is a major seller of ballistic missile technology to other countries of concern, such as Iran and Iraq, Syria and others. These countries have regional ambitions and do not welcome the U.S. presence or influence in their region. Acquisition of missile weapon systems is the most effective way of challenging the United States. Mr. President, we should not and must not wait for these weapons to be used against us, the stakes are too high. We must move forward with the development and deployment of a national missile defense to protect our shores from hostile attack. The bill will send a clear message that we are determined to defend ourselves and will not be deterred from our national and international commitments. An effective and dependable system must be in place before such a threat can be used against us, or the results could be disastrous. We will not get a second change. The Department of Defense has requested funding to develop a viable missile defense system. I encourage the administration not to back away from this critical defense issue. The world has changed; we must move ahead and change the way we think about the defense of our nation. It has been argued on this floor that the adoption of S. 257 will make reductions in nuclear weapons more difficult and would place the United States in breach of the ABM Treaty. I too am concerned about honoring our treaty commitments. However, this bill states our intent to protect our homeland. We will have ample time to continue to work with Russia on these treaty issues, and I am confident we will reach an equable position. We must be clear, the threat goes beyond our agreements with other countries. America has a leadership role in the world. We represent the hope for peace and opportunity. I believe this is one of the most important defense issues facing the United States. To vote against this bill would be to ignore the number one responsibility of the Federal government--the defense of our nation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be allowed continued consideration of the nomination of David Williams for Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration until April 6, 1999. I further ask that if the nomination is not reported on or by that date, the nomination be immediately discharged and placed back on the Calendar.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, a concurrent resolution relating to congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Under the order, there will be 45 minutes for debate on the resolution with time controlled by Senators Brownback and Wellstone. At the conclusion of the debate time, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 280, the education flexibility bill, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member. At 2 p.m., under a previous order, the Senate will proceed to a stacked series of rollcall votes. The first vote will be on adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, to be followed by votes on amendments pending to the Ed-Flex bill. The final vote in the sequence will be on the passage of the bill. Following the stacked series of votes, it may be the leader's intention to begin consideration of Calendar No. 16, S. 257, a bill regarding the deployment of a missile defense system. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under the previous order, I believe there are 45 minutes equally divided between myself and Mr. Wellstone on this debate. At the very start of the Oslo peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wrote a letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in which he stated this: ``The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides, and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' That letter was dated September 9, 1993, and it led to the ceremony on the White House lawn 4 days later that publicly launched the peace process. Indeed, it was on the basis of the words that Chairman Arafat wrote that Israel agreed to enter into the negotiations. It was on that basis that Israel agreed to cede land and political authority to the Palestinians. It is the most important and fundamental Palestinian commitment, and it undergirds the entire peace process. And yet it is this very principle that Chairman Arafat now threatens to abandon. Over the past several months he has repeatedly threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital. Mr. President, this issue touches the core of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the question of the permanent status of the Palestinian entity. What will be its final borders? Will there be limits on its sovereignty? Will it be allowed to have a military, to possess jets and tanks and missiles, to enter into foreign alliances with the likes of Iraq or Iran or Libya? All these questions need to be bilaterally negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians so that Israel's security can be assured. You can just imagine what happens the day after a unilateral declaration. Palestinian security forces begin patrolling an area that they now consider part of an independent state but that is part of the area that Israel has had security control over. Israel would undoubtedly have to take steps to provide for the safety of its citizens. Tension will mount quickly, leading inevitably--and rapidly-- to a quick descent into violence and bloodshed. And consider for a moment what the Palestinians have already achieved in the peace process. Five years ago at this time, not one Palestinian living in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank lived under Palestinian civilian authority. Today, 98 percent have their own executive branch, democratically-elected legislature, and courts. They have their own educational system, their own broadcasting authority, their own airport, their own travel documents, their own flag and anthem. They have full control over virtually the entire Gaza Strip and ten percent of the West Bank, including all major population centers, and civilian authority over another seventeen percent. And that is even before the start of final status negotiations. There has been much progress. So why does Arafat make such a threat? Why jeopardize the entire peace process? On May 4, the five-year period that began with the signing of the first agreement between Israel and the Palestinians ends. It had been hoped that by that point all final status negotiations would have been completed. But it should be noted that none of the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians--Oslo I, Oslo II, the agreement on redeployment in the city of Hebron, and the Wye River Accord were negotiated by the hoped for date. Still, the negotiators stuck to it until agreements were hammered out. That is exactly what should occur now. The peace process is much too important to be held hostage to an arbitrary date. Some say that Arafat will back down and not carry out this threat, or that he will postpone the date. I certainly hope that is right. But listen to these words of his closest associate which were spoken as recently as February 22, less than 3 weeks ago. He said, We . . . assure the whole world that the establishment of the independent state of Palestine, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, is a sacred and legitimate right of the Palestinian people. It is a goal that our people will not accept to abdicate or to give up no matter what the difficulties. Palestinian Authority Minister Nabil Shaath said on February 9, ``Our position concerning our right to declare a state on the fourth of May has not changed. Any opposition to this right is rejected.'' Eleven days later, on February 20, he continued on the same line, stating, ``We are moving forward in our preparations for the day, May 4, the date of the declaration of the Palestinian state.'' A few weeks earlier, in January of this year, he indicated that the declaration of independence would, in his words, ``delineate the borders of the Palestinian state as being the borders of June 4, 1967, including all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the part of Jerusalem that was on the Jordanian side of the armistice.'' So it is clear that the Palestinians are still considering their options. Chairman Arafat should know, therefore, that the Congress of the United States strongly urges him not to pursue this reckless course, but to live up to his own words and his own fundamental commitment to negotiate this most complicated and important issue bilaterally with Israel. That is the only true path to a final and lasting peace, which is what we all see. He should know that the Congress of the United States stands strongly in opposition to a unilateral declaration. This resolution expresses that opposition to a unilateral declaration, and it urges the President to make clear to Chairman Arafat that we will not recognize a unilaterally declared state. We should be very clear on this point. This is a matter of principle. We should not be relieved if Mr. Arafat arises on May 4 and says, ``We will postpone this decision until December 31.'' A unilateral declaration, whenever it would occur, would be wrong. The status of the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be determined through negotiations with Israel. Period. We should not pay Mr. Arafat for not doing something which he should not have threatened to do in the first place. We should have only one message: To make a unilateral declaration of statehood is wrong, we will not recognize it, and we urge you not to go forward with it, but instead to return to the process that has gotten us this far to date-- the peace process. That is the only course which holds a promise of meeting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people while providing the people of Israel what they have yearned for in the past 50 years: peace with security. Mr. President, we have a number of speakers on our side, and I know Senator Wellstone does as well. Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kyl, Robb, Abraham and Moynihan as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 5. Their names appear to have been inadvertently omitted in the printed Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. What a beautiful prayer and beautiful way to start the day.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator Jeffords, and others, for the important work they have done on this piece of legislation. I think this is a marvelous piece of legislation. In my time in the Senate, which has not been long, I cannot recall seeing a piece of legislation that has been supported by all 50 Governors. All 50 of them are supporting Ed-Flex. It seems like, to me, it is one of those provisions in bills that comes forward where people say, ``This is the right time, right place, right idea. Let's do it.'' It is time we should move forward with this bill. It passed in committee 10-0. It passed last year out of committee 17-1. This ought to be something on which we could agree. I would just like to make a couple of points. My State is an Ed-Flex State. Kansas is an Ed-Flex State. We have had a number of school districts that have asked for and received the authority and the flexibility. This started down the same path that welfare reform did early on, when you finally had some States saying, ``Look, the situation has gotten bad enough. You have so many Federal strings and redtape on it that we can do a better job here if you'll just give us a little breathing room. Just let us have a little bit of help here, not telling us what to do and letting us decide.'' That is what started welfare reform; you had some States starting to do that and asking for little provisions: ``Let us take this into our own hands and we'll do a better job.'' And you know what? They did do a better job. They did do a better job, and they were the laboratory of the experimentation of democracy in saying, ``Well, let's try it different here; different there.'' And what has ended up taking place? We have in my State welfare reform today where you have had a reduction in welfare recipients of 50 percent over the past 4 years--a 50-percent decline. And the people off welfare are saying, ``Thank goodness I'm working,'' and ``I feel better about myself.'' And I feel better about this program. This has worked. We are seeking to replicate that in education by saying, ``Let the flowers bloom in the States across the Nation.'' The principle behind Ed-Flex is simple. You have heard about it. It allows local schools to implement creative programs that are custom tailored to the needs of their kids, enables State education agencies to waive State requirements, along with Federal mandates, so that local schools can innovate effectively. Listen to what we are doing in Kansas about these Ed-Flex programs that we have in our State. We have had several States where we have had a number of waiver requests. I think we have 43 waivers in my State that have been requested. One school district received a waiver in order to more better distribute title I funds to the neediest students. Leavenworth schools requested a waiver to provide an all-day kindergarten class and preschool programs to better serve the special needs of the children of our soldiers who are serving at Fort Leavenworth. Emporia used an Ed- Flex waiver to implement new literacy programs and an intensive summer school program. Do those sound like good innovative ideas that are particular for a local school district meeting its needs? It certainly does. And that is what Ed-Flex is about; and that is what it is providing in my State. Take that and replicate that across the Nation to the 46 million schoolchildren in 87,000 public schools across this country. And does anyone really think--does anyone really think--that a one-size-fits-all approach would work with such incredible diverse needs, circumstances, situations across the country? Communities need the flexibility to address their unique needs, and given that opportunity they will educate the children better. They will do a better job than the one- size-fits-all mandates out of Washington. I am surprised and dismayed that some people are filibustering this bill and saying: Well, we're not going to let it move forward on such a tried and true concept that is being tried and worked in so many States, that is supported by all 50 Governors, that provides for localized decision making on such an important decision as to how do we educate our children? We have examples in this thing that should be working, and we should allow this to take place. Unfortunately, some people are trying to kill this bill with amendments that, of all things, actually add--actually add--Federal mandates--which the whole point of the bill is to reduce Federal mandates, and a number of people are trying to add Federal mandates. Think about that. When the purpose of this is to allow schools flexibility in how they run their programs and spend their money, most of these amendments do exactly the opposite. They mandate that the schools spend a certain amount of money in a certain way no matter what their situation or their need. It just does not make sense. What is even stranger is that these amendments would require additional Federal spending on new mandates while ignoring the commitments we already made to children with special needs through programs like the IDEA. The way I see it, we should fulfill the promises we have made to disabled children before we create new entitlement. There are many reasons why we need Ed-Flex. I think it can create that innovative environment that can let our schools be as good as our children. Currently, our system is failing our children. What we need to do is get these obstructions of Federal regulations out of the way. We need to stop holding up the passage of these worthy initiatives and start doing the right thing by the American people and by our children. Let this bill move. Let it move forward so that we can give that innovative atmosphere, and we can have a system worthy of the children of America. Mr. President, I yield back the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a concurrent resolution congratulating the State of Qatar and its citizens for their commitment to democratic ideals and women's suffrage on the occasion of Qatar's historic elections of a central municipal council on March 8, 1999. By holding these elections, Qatar becomes only the second Gulf Arab state to have an elected house, and the first to allow women the vote and the right to take part in the municipal polls. These elections are a very promising step towards the establishment of democracy. As a country which stands firmly committed to democratic ideals, including the suffrage of women, the United States should applaud this bold move by His Highness, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar for issuing the decree to create the central municipal council and for making this major step towards democracy possible. This resolution commends the Emir of Qatar for his leadership and commitment to suffrage and the principles of democracy; congratulates the citizens of Qatar as they celebrate the historic election for a central municipal council; and reaffirms that the United States is strongly committed to encouraging the suffrage of women, democratic ideals, and peaceful development throughout the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this initiatives.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I have introduced a proposal for a tax cut which I think answers a number of questions that people have been putting forward. I hear both sides of the aisle talking about a tax cut and the willingness to have a tax cut. Some are saying we need it to be targeted; some say we need to do it with the marriage penalty; others say we need a broad-based tax relief to take place. The proposal I am putting in today would expand the 15-percent tax category over a period of 10 years and raise that to the level of the maximum amount at which we tax Social Security. What it does is, we broaden that 15-percent tax bracket. We make it such that it will take care of most of the marriage penalty. It will be economically simulating in that it will be a great relief for a number of people that grow into that 15-percent category, then, as we expand it. And it will be middle-income targeted because it will be that category of people making in the 15-percent rate and growing it up to $72,000 over a period of 10 years. I think this answers a lot of questions on what we have been putting forward. We set aside every dime of Social Security money for Social Security, period. We do that. All those funds flowing into Social Security will remain and stay with Social Security. Not a dime of that is touched. With the other resources that we have coming in that are building the surplus, let's do this sort of tax cut that moves to the middle-income category and addresses the marriage penalty problem. That is economically stimulating and is one that I think can be fair and helpful to our growth. This is the final point I will make, as I intend to be brief about this. We are at a period of being able to talk about solving Social Security and paying down debt and providing tax cuts and dealing with education problems because we have a strong growing economy. We have a growing economy that is producing these sorts of revenues. We have to maintain that, and the lead thing that we can do to maintain that is to provide for economically stimulating tax cuts like what I am proposing here, and broaden that 15-percent tax rate, target it for people there, and have an economically stimulating benefit from that occurring. I think that is the way that we need to go to be able to maintain what we have in place now in this healthy economy and to be able to deal with these sorts of issues, to stimulate education reform, and to have the funds for education, as well. Mr. President, that is the proposal I have introduced today. I urge my colleagues to look at it, and I would appreciate their support for this bill as we press forward on this broad-based debate on what we are going to do about this budget and how we continue the strong economy.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I have introduced a proposal for a tax cut which I think answers a number of questions that people have been putting forward. I hear both sides of the aisle talking about a tax cut and the willingness to have a tax cut. Some are saying we need it to be targeted; some say we need to do it with the marriage penalty; others say we need a broad-based tax relief to take place. The proposal I am putting in today would expand the 15-percent tax category over a period of 10 years and raise that to the level of the maximum amount at which we tax Social Security. What it does is, we broaden that 15-percent tax bracket. We make it such that it will take care of most of the marriage penalty. It will be economically simulating in that it will be a great relief for a number of people that grow into that 15-percent category, then, as we expand it. And it will be middle-income targeted because it will be that category of people making in the 15-percent rate and growing it up to $72,000 over a period of 10 years. I think this answers a lot of questions on what we have been putting forward. We set aside every dime of Social Security money for Social Security, period. We do that. All those funds flowing into Social Security will remain and stay with Social Security. Not a dime of that is touched. With the other resources that we have coming in that are building the surplus, let's do this sort of tax cut that moves to the middle-income category and addresses the marriage penalty problem. That is economically stimulating and is one that I think can be fair and helpful to our growth. This is the final point I will make, as I intend to be brief about this. We are at a period of being able to talk about solving Social Security and paying down debt and providing tax cuts and dealing with education problems because we have a strong growing economy. We have a growing economy that is producing these sorts of revenues. We have to maintain that, and the lead thing that we can do to maintain that is to provide for economically stimulating tax cuts like what I am proposing here, and broaden that 15-percent tax rate, target it for people there, and have an economically stimulating benefit from that occurring. I think that is the way that we need to go to be able to maintain what we have in place now in this healthy economy and to be able to deal with these sorts of issues, to stimulate education reform, and to have the funds for education, as well. Mr. President, that is the proposal I have introduced today. I urge my colleagues to look at it, and I would appreciate their support for this bill as we press forward on this broad-based debate on what we are going to do about this budget and how we continue the strong economy.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What business are we in right now?

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Educational Flexibility Partnership Act, the Ed-Flex program that has been debated here today. I congratulate Senator Frist and Senator Jeffords for their work on this bill of which I am a cosponsor. Ed-Flex does the important work of granting waivers of certain statutory and regulatory requirements so that local schools can implement creative programs that are custom-tailored to the needs of their kids and allows some State education agencies to waive State requirements along with Federal mandates so that local schools can innovate effectively. I think this is an extremely important program. We have been saying for some period of time that too much of education is directed out of Washington, that problems in education are not solved in Washington as much as they are at the local level. If we can allow people to have the flexibility in Kansas, Nebraska, Vermont, Tennessee, Texas or California to solve their education problems with these dollars, they will get more education done, and they will have more effective education done than if we direct it out of Washington. It is a basic premise. It works. It has worked on a number of programs. We allowed this to take place in welfare reform. We had a number of different experiments on welfare reform that led welfare rates to decline 50 percent. We solve it in Kansas differently than they solve it in other States. It worked. Education--we have a problem. But it is not a uniform problem that you can say, OK, if we just do this and this and this all across the Nation with programs, the problem is solved. It doesn't work that way. We have different educational needs in different places. Ed-Flex is tried and true as a concept. It is a needed concept in education, because we need more flexibility to get these dollars into the classroom than people back here deciding how to spend it. I might note that Ed-Flex is already in place in 12 States, including my home State of Kansas. Schools there have already submitted 43 waiver requests in an effort to better serve the unique needs of Kansas students. At this point, no waiver has been rejected. Around two dozen requests have already been granted, and others are pending. I would encourage the Department of Education to expedite those requests. That speech and that point that I just gave sounds very reminiscent of a point that I made in 1995 about waivers that were being granted on welfare reform and asking that those be sped up so that States could solve the problem. We are at the same point in time with education. Let's let the States have the resources and have them solve the problem. Kansas schools have used Ed-Flex for many reasons. One school district received a waiver in order to better distribute title I funds to the neediest students. Leavenworth schools requested a waiver to provide an all-day kindergarten class and preschool programs to better serve the needs of children of parents that are at Fort Leavenworth at the military facility. Emporia used an Ed-Flex waiver to implement new literacy programs in an intensive summer school program. That fit the needs and what we had for needs in Emporia. The list goes on. These are all very different programs that address different needs. But that is just the point. Schools need this flexibility. We need education decisions made in Emporia, in Fort Leavenworth, in Topeka, and in Manhattan--not in Washington for Kansas. We need it made there. And the people there care for the students. They look in their eyes every day. They can say, ``We need this program here.'' What can we tell them in Washington? No. You don't need that program. What you need is something else when we don't even look into the eyes of that same child. People here in the Washington bureaucracy have great desires to help that child, but the person who is right there closest is the one who can best determine what that child needs. This is the sort of program that allows that to take place. Schools need that sort of flexibility. While Ed-Flex is an important first step, there are other steps that we need to take as well. If we are going to make progress toward improving our schools, we need to give the States and communities far more flexibility and empower them to make decisions with what is best for their schoolchildren. As important as it is to make waivers to Federal regulations available, frankly, I believe it would be better if we would roll back those regulations altogether and provide the resources to Kansas and to the school districts, and say to them, ``You figure out how best to educate these students.'' Believe me. They will come up with the ideas to do it. They will implement them, and they will get them done without the regulation here. I don't think anybody in this Chamber, or in this town, should think that somebody in Emporia, KS, doesn't care greatly about how that child is educated and won't do the absolute best they can to make sure that child is educated well. We need to empower them. We need to empower the parents, the teachers, the school boards, the communities over the government bureaucracy. That is why I will vote in favor of the Ed-Flexibility Act. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I say let's not stop here. This is where we started with welfare reform--providing these waivers. Ultimately, when we gave the program to the States and the resources to the State, they cut the welfare dependency in half and had people who were on welfare being thankful that they are now out on the job and they are encouraged about that. Why don't we try that with education, letting the States and the locals decide this? We will get more for every education dollar that we put out there. And, more importantly, our students will be better, and they will achieve higher test scores in the key areas that they are not doing today. Mr. President, one other point: I think we have finally started down the road of making some real reforms in education, and reforms that I think people have been afraid that we are going to dictate out of Washington. This, to me, is a positive step forward--letting the local school districts start to decide on how they can implement those reforms. We have a lot of bright students across this country who need a system that is as bright as that are to challenge them and help them move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, three years ago this month, Congress and the President hailed the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This piece of legislation was intended to increase competition, expand consumer choice, foster new technologies and create new jobs. The Act contemplated the achievement of these goals through reliance on the marketplace rather than on a sluggish and burdensome regulatory mandate. The implementation of the Act by the Federal Communications Commission has sailed way off course. Congress provided the universal service program as a means of ensuring that residents of rural and high-cost areas receive the same high quality services and the same affordable rates as their urban counterparts. Yet universal service, one of the most important topics addressed in the Act, remains virtually unchanged by the FCC after three years despite the Commission's statutory responsibility to finish universal service reform in a ``single proceeding'' and within 15 months of passage of the Act. The FCC did complete a small part of the universal service mandate, the program bringing advanced services to schools and libraries. However, the Commission continues to ignore the most significant aspect of universal service reform, ``the preservation and advancement of universal service'' and high-cost areas. The Act commands that the Commission make the support mechanisms explicit and predictable. The Commission's failure to do so threatens the affordability of rural residential rates. The uncertainty created by the FCC's failure to implement universal service is perpetuating the absence of local competition, especially in rural areas. As a consequence, local residential competition will remain at the current inadequate levels until the FCC addresses universal service. Congress intended that carriers providing service to residents of rural and high-cost areas would receive support for the ``provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services'' which would otherwise be absent in these areas. Accordingly, the Commission must make the now implicit subsidies explicit and sufficient in order to fulfill Congress' mandate. Congress is still looking for more competition and more choice in all communications services, especially for rural residents. Let's allow the marketplace to work, which will give consumers in rural areas some real choices at affordable rates. Mr. President, this year Congress will consider reauthorization of the FCC. I am extremely disappointed with the Commission's track record on implementation of the Act. As we contemplate legislation to change the FCC, its actions over the next several months will determine the outcome of our deliberations. I hope that the FCC will complete the universal service proceeding by July 1, and act in a manner consistent with the Act. I will not accept a universal service proceeding that puts upward pressure on rural rates, and I will hold the FCC accountable it fails to comply with the Act. Mr. President, three years ago this month, Congress and the President hailed the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This piece of legislation was intended to increase competition, expand consumer choice, foster new technologies and create new jobs. The Act contemplated the achievement of these goals through reliance on the marketplace rather than on a sluggish and burdensome regulatory mandate. The implementation of the Act by the Federal Communications Commission has sailed way off course. Congress provided the universal service program as a means of ensuring that residents of rural and high-cost areas receive the same high quality services and the same affordable rates as their urban counterparts. Yet universal service, one of the most important topics addressed in the Act, remains virtually unchanged by the FCC after three years despite the Commission's statutory responsibility to finish universal service reform in a ``single proceeding'' and within 15 months of passage of the Act. The FCC did complete a small part of the universal service mandate, the program bringing advanced services to schools and libraries. However, the Commission continues to ignore the most significant aspect of universal service reform, ``the preservation and advancement of universal service'' and high-cost areas. The Act commands that the Commission make the support mechanisms explicit and predictable. The Commission's failure to do so threatens the affordability of rural residential rates. The uncertainty created by the FCC's failure to implement universal service is perpetuating the absence of local competition, especially in rural areas. As a consequence, local residential competition will remain at the current inadequate levels until the FCC addresses universal service. Congress intended that carriers providing service to residents of rural and high-cost areas would receive support for the ``provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services'' which would otherwise be absent in these areas. Accordingly, the Commission must make the now implicit subsidies explicit and sufficient in order to fulfill Congress' mandate. Congress is still looking for more competition and more choice in all communications services, especially for rural residents. Let's allow the marketplace to work, which will give consumers in rural areas some real choices at affordable rates. Mr. President, this year Congress will consider reauthorization of the FCC. I am extremely disappointed with the Commission's track record on implementation of the Act. As we contemplate legislation to change the FCC, its actions over the next several months will determine the outcome of our deliberations. I hope that the FCC will complete the universal service proceeding by July 1, and act in a manner consistent with the Act. I will not accept a universal service proceeding that puts upward pressure on rural rates, and I will hold the FCC accountable if it fails to comply with the Act.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks in support of Senator Allard's bill that would prohibit the implementation of the ``Know Your Customer'' (KYC) regulations by the four federal banking agencies (Office of Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am concerned that this proposal would bring a regulatory imbalance to banks and their competitors, increase regulatory burdens on the banking industry and potentially violate the privacy of consumers. Once again the federal government has prescribed regulations that are costly to businesses and intrusive to citizens. These regulations would put the banking industry at a disadvantage with their nonbank financial service competitors because many of them are not required to develop and maintain ``Know Your Customer'' programs under the proposal. Many bank customers would correctly view this as an intrusion of their privacy and might elect to conduct their banking business at other financial institutions. Current criminal reporting requirements already mandate that financial institutions report violations of federal law to the Treasury Department after uncovering potential money laundering, insider abuse, or any violation of federal law. Ironically, under the proposed regulations by the federal banking agencies, a financial institution would not be required to report a violation after it has occurred. The proposed regulations create more burdensome and invasive regulations by requiring banks to investigate all customers activity to see if any violation of federal law has taken place, not just those suspected of criminal activity. This could be time consuming and extremely costly for banks. The proposed regulations have generated many concerns from both consumers and the banking industry. A proposal that requires bankers to analyze all customer transactions would violate the public's trust and confidence in the banking industry. The financial service sector has been very effective in reporting possible violations of the law, while at the same time protecting customer information. The proposed regulations do little to increase the ability to curtail illegal activity and would severely harm America's financial institutions and the customers they serve. I encourage the four federal banking agencies to reconsider their proposed regulations and withdraw them.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think I could do it in 7 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, before I start, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Steve Thompson, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate and consideration of S. 4.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here joining my colleague from Kansas and other Members, expressing support for S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill comes at a time when our services are facing increased difficulties in hiring and keeping quality personnel because of low pay, inadequate benefits, and increasingly frequent deployments. There is nobody who would say that what I just stated is untrue. Those are all true. They are all impacting our military personnel today. I join my colleague from Kansas, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, in strongly supporting this bill and saying that the first and foremost requirement of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and we are not providing adequately for the common defense. We have to do that. And, if we let down on that obligation because it does not show up high in the poll numbers or some other reason, we are failing our duty to this country to provide the first and foremost thing that we are required to do. Let me remind my fellow Senators that defense spending has declined in real terms every year for the last 11 years and now comprises a lower percentage of our budget than ever before. We have seen a 19- percent decline in defense spending since 1992. Is the world that much of a safer place today? We have troops scattered everywhere around the world and we have had a 19-percent decline in defense spending since 1992. We have peacekeeping operations, we have had global contingencies in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and now we are facing deployment decisions in Kosovo. This is an extremely high operation tempo that is being maintained over this period of time, with an enormous strain on troops and on their families. Even under adverse conditions, our troops have continued to perform their task superbly. The lower defense spending combined with an increased deployment schedule and inadequate benefits, though, have resulted in an all-time low enlistment and inability to retain quality personnel: Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. America's service men and women and their families deserve a better quality of life. They put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and the least we can do--the least we can do, I would think, is provide adequate pay, decent living conditions, and some educational opportunities. This bill includes several provisions that will benefit our military personnel and increase retention and enlistment. It will include a 4.8- percent military pay raise. This, plus future pay raises at the employment cost index plus 0.5 percent, helps close the gap between military and civilian pay. In addition, we have included military pay table reform that will increase pay for those personnel in midcareer points by up to about 10.3 percent. These are experienced personnel that we cannot afford to lose. We also revised the military retirement system by allowing service personnel the option, after 15 years of service, to revert to the pre- 1986 military retirement system or take a one-time $30,000 bonus if they remain under the current system. We allow Thrift Savings Plans, similar to what other Federal employees get. Our military members deserve to have the same opportunities that other Government employees have. We also enhanced the Montgomery GI bill. This educational benefit has already sent hundreds of thousands of veterans to college and, I might add, has been a key fuel in pushing forward our economy. These educational benefits come back to the Federal Government in economic growth and opportunity and tax revenues. This is a good investment for everybody, and they will be transferable to immediate family members. But most important, this bill provides for a special subsistence allowance for enlisted personnel eligible for food stamps. If you can imagine that, you are in the U.S. military, you are putting your life on the line and you are living on food stamps--living on food stamps. For those service members who demonstrate eligibility for food stamps, this bill provides them with a monthly allowance of $180 per month. This will keep our military personnel off food stamps and provide them with the support they need. Mr. President, this to me is just unconscionable, that you really would put your life, your family at stake, and what are we paying you? We are not paying you enough if you can get food stamps, that you would qualify for food stamps. That is ridiculous, and we need to change it. This bill, S. 4, does change it. I close by cautioning my fellow Members of the Senate that this may not be enough to stem the exodus of our service members. The Department of Defense and Congress must pursue additional remedies that will rectify the retention problem. This legislation takes a good first step, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Ashcroft, Baucus, and Kerrey, in authoring the Food and Medicine for the World Act of 1999, which would limit the ability of the U.S. government to unilaterally cut off our exports of food and medicine to foreign countries. The current stressed state of the farm economy is simply highlighting a problem that has existed in U.S. foreign policy for years. That is, our law allows for the application of unilateral sanctions on the export of food, despite extensive evidence that this policy is not only ineffective in achieving U.S. foreign policy goals but also is harmful to American economic interests. This is especially the case for agricultural commodities, which are readily available from other suppliers around the world and which are a critical component of the U.S. export portfolio. Moreover, limiting access to food and medical products is likely to have the most devastating effect on not the governments that the U.S. seeks to punish, but rather the poorest citizens of the foreign country. Thus it makes sense for the U.S. to engage with the citizens of that country by supplying--either through aid programs or through trade--basic life-sustaining products. This bill takes a moderate approach and prohibits sanctioning of food and medical products only. It also provides a safeguard by allowing the prohibition to be waived if the President submits a report to Congress asking that the sanction include agriculture and medicine and Congress approves, through an expedited process, his request to sanction. Therefore, there is a mechanism to prohibit aid or trade from occurring with a rogue foreign regime when there is broad national consensus that it is the right thing to do. I believe that this is a reasonable balance between our need so stop using ineffective agricultural sanctions and our need to continue protecting U.S. foreign policy interests. It is high time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot by cutting off agricultural exports, which are a real building block of the U.S. economy. I am encouraged that many members of the Senate have focused their attention on this problem and I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to enact needed reforms.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I find that William Jefferson Clinton did commit perjury and obstruct justice; that these offenses rise to the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors;'' that William Jefferson Clinton should be convicted under the Articles of Impeachment; and that he must be removed as President of the United States. This is a sad chapter in our nation's long and illustrious history. A man of extraordinary talent took a mistake and turned it into a tragedy. William Jefferson Clinton is no ordinary man. Gifted and charismatic, brilliant and refined, he took raw ability and focus and turned it into a Presidency. Such is the stuff of story books and heroes. Sadly for this tale, the hero had a habit he would not break, and, when it called him back to darkness, he sought to hide it at all cost. And there the tragedy occurred. President Clinton repeatedly chose to lie and obstruct justice rather than tell the truth and comply with court orders throughout this ordeal. By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation. By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic. The following represents the specific facts upon which I find William Jefferson Clinton is guilty of perjury before a Federal Grand Jury and obstruction of justice, and must be removed as the President of the United States: article i--perjury before a federal grand jury In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee: A. Testimony that conflicts with Ms. Lewinsky's account of the relationship: Ms. Lewinsky testified as to the extent of her sexual relationship with President Clinton, and her statements were corroborated by numerous individuals with whom she contemporaneously shared the details of her encounters with the President, including two professionals. Her testimony indicated direct contact by the President with certain areas of her body. The conduct described by Ms. Lewinsky clearly falls within the definition of sexual relations as President Clinton understood the term to be defined in the Paula Jones case and during his grand jury testimony. In his prepared statement to the grand jury, President Clinton stated that the sexual encounters between he and Ms. Lewinsky ``did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition.'' President Clinton acknowledged that the type of activity described by Ms. Lewinsky constituted sexual relations as he understood the term to be defined during the Paula Jones' deposition: ``I understood the definition to be limited to, to physical contact with those areas of the bodies with the specific intent to arouse or gratify.'' However, during questioning under oath, President Clinton repeatedly denied engaging in the activities described by Ms. Lewinsky. President Clinton was even asked by a grand juror whether ``if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched [certain area of her body that falls within the definition of sexual relations as understood by the President in the Paula Jones case], would she be lying.'' President Clinton responded: ``That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former statement about that.'' If Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is true, President Clinton committed perjury during his grand jury testimony. I have had the opportunity to read the portions of grand jury testimony provided by both President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky concerning their characterizations of their sexual relations. I also had the opportunity to watch Ms. Lewinsky's videotaped deposition in which she reaffirmed her previous grand jury testimony concerning the extent of their sexual relations. Based upon (1) the corroboration of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony by numerous witnesses with whom she had spoken contemporaneously, (2) the detailed nature of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, (3) the evasiveness of President Clinton's testimony, (4) the apparent sincerity of Ms. Lewinsky in her videotaped deposition before the Senate, and (5) the President's refusal to be deposed by the Senate, I find that the President provided false and misleading testimony before a federal grand jury that constitutes perjury. B. Testimony concerning his account of the relationship to Betty Currie: On January 18, 1998, President Clinton met with Mrs. Currie at the White House and told her ``there are several things you may want to know'' about the President's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. During his grand jury testimony, President Clinton stated that ``I was not trying to get Betty Currie to say something that was untruthful.'' However, as discussed further in the obstruction of justice charges, President Clinton said to Mrs. Currie ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' Based upon both Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton's testimony concerning their intimate contact, and upon Ms. Lewinsky's Senate deposition, I must conclude that Ms. Lewinsky's account of their intimate activity is accurate. As a result, I must further concluded that President Clinton was lying when he told Mrs. Currie that he had not touched Ms. Lewinsky, and that the President permitted perjury when he testified before the grand jury that he had not asked Mrs. Currie ``to say something that was untruthful.'' Mr. Clinton further testified that his only interest in speaking to Mrs. Currie that day after the President was deposed in the Paula Jones' case was to ``refresh [his] own recollection'' and ``not to impart instructions on how she was to recall things in the future.'' As will be discussed further below, I conclude that President Clinton made a series of statements to Betty Currie in an attempt to improperly persuade her to provide false testimony. As a result, based upon the evidence presented in the record, I believe that President Clinton's interest in talking to Mrs. Currie the day after he was deposed by Paula Jones' attorneys was to impart instructions on how Mrs. Currie was to recall events concerning the President's illicit affair and not to refresh the President's memory. The President's statements before the grand jury concerning his interest in talking to Mrs. Currie would thus constitute perjury. C. Testimony concerning his account of the relationship to Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta: In his grand jury testimony, President Clinton asserted in his conversations with Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Podesta, that ``I said things that were true. They may have been misleading.'' President Clinton further states that ``what I was trying to do was give them something they could--that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition.'' Mr. Clinton told Sidney Blumenthal that ``Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me'' and that the President had rebuffed her. Mr. Blumenthal also testified that the President claimed that Ms. Lewinsky threatened the President, saying ``that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker any more.'' When Mr. Blumenthal asked the President whether Mr. Clinton had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, the President replied ``I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'' Even President Clinton acknowledges that he was alone with Monica Lewinsky, and, therefore not within eyesight or earshot of anybody, on numerous occasions. Mr. Clinton also acknowledges that he and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in ``inappropriate intimate contact'' which, if Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is true, amounted to sexual relations as President Clinton understood the term to be defined in the Paula Jones case. As a result, the President lied, not simply misled Mr. Blumenthal, when Mr. Clinton stated that he had ``rebuffed her.'' John Podesta testified that President Clinton had told Mr. Podesta that the President ``had never had sex with her [Ms. Lewinsky] in any way whatsoever.'' Mr. Podesta further testified that President Clinton elaborated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky ``had not engaged in [sexual activity that falls within the definition of sexual relations as President Clinton understood the term to be defined in the Paula Jones case].'' During Mr. Clinton's grand jury testimony, he refused to directly contradict Mr. Podesta's characterization of their conversation: ``I'm not saying that anybody who had a contrary memory is wrong.'' President Clinton was asked ``[i]f [the White House aides] testified that you denied sexual relations or relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or if they told us that you denied that, do you have any reason to doubt them?'' The President responded ``no.'' Based on the evidence concerning the extent of the sexual relationship between President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky, and based on the President's own admission concerning the accuracy of statements made by his aides, I conclude that President Clinton committed perjury when he characterized the manner in which he conveyed false statements to Mr. Podesta and Mr. Blumenthal. President Clinton did not simply mislead his aides, he lied to them about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. article ii--obstruction of justice In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included: A. On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Ms. Lewinsky testified that on December 28, 1997 she told President Clinton that she had been subpoenaed and that the subpoena required her to produce gifts given her by the President. According to Ms. Lewinsky, she asked the President ``should I--maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone maybe Betty.'' Ms. Lewinsky testified that President Clinton responded ``I don't know'' or ``Let me think about that.'' Later that day (December 28), Ms. Lewinsky testified that she received a phone call from Mrs. Currie, who stated ``I understand you have something to give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' Mrs. Currie then retrieved the gifts that President Clinton had given to Ms. Lewinsky and hid them under her bed. Based upon the fact that Mrs. Currie was clearly acting under instructions from President Clinton, I find that President Clinton obstructed justice by attempting to hide evidence requested in a subpoena in a federal civil rights case. B. Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. At President Clinton's request, Vernon Jordan met with Monica Lewinsky in November of 1997 to discuss assistance that Mr. Jordan could provide Ms. Lewinsky in securing a job in New York. However, Mr. Jordan took no action until December 11, 1997, five days after President Clinton learned that Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Paula Jones case and that Mr. Jordan had not yet provided Ms. Lewinsky with any assistance in securing a job in New York. On the day that Mr. Clinton learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list, the President assured her that he would talk to Mr. Jordan to ensure that Mr. Jordan stepped up his efforts to secure her a job in New York. Mr. Jordan stepped up his activities on December 11, 1998, because, on that date, Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered that Paul Jones was entitled to information concerning any government employee with whom the President had sexual relations. On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed a false affidavit, stating that she had not engaged in a sexual relationship with the President. On January 8, 1998, after Ms. Lewinsky believed that her interview with MacAndrews and Forbes in New York had gone poorly, Mr. Jordan called the company's CEO, Ron Perelman, to ask his assistance with securing employment for Ms. Lewinsky within Mr. Perelman's company. All of this activity was done in order to ensure that Ms. Lewinsky did not provide damaging testimony against President Clinton and thus constituted an effort to obstruct justice in the Paul Jones case. C. On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. Mrs. Currie was summoned to the White House on Sunday, January 18, 1998 for a private meeting with President Clinton. The President was under court order not to talk about the case to anyone. Nonetheless, after telling Mrs. Currie that he had been deposed in the Paula Jones case and that Ms. Jones' attorneys had asked the President several questions about Ms. Lewinsky, President Clinton then made a series of statements to Mrs. Currie: I was never really alone with Monica, right? You were always there when Monica was there, right? Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? You could see and hear everything, right? The testimony of Mrs. Currie and President Clinton demonstrate that these statements were an attempt to influence the future testimony of Mrs. Currie regarding the President's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton admitted being alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Mrs. Currie also testified that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had been alone. Given the fact that President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had been alone on a number of occasions, a fact that President Clinton would be unlikely to forget considering the intimate nature of their encounters, the President was not refreshing his memory when he stated to Mrs. Currie that he and Ms. Lewinsky had never been alone. President Clinton was attempting to improperly persuade Mrs. Currie to testify that he and Ms. Lewinsky were never alone. Mrs. Currie testified that President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky were alone a number of times. Despite the legal hairsplitting engaged in by the White House, I interpret the statement ``You were always there when Monica was there, right?'' to mean that President Clinton was attempting to improperly persuade Mrs. Currie to testify that Ms. Lewinsky was always within Mrs. Currie's sight during her visits to the President. Based upon Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, President Clinton's statement that ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' would clearly be false. In addition, because even President Clinton admitted to ``inappropriate intimate contact,'' I assume that President Clinton is at least admitting to having touched Ms. Lewinsky. As a result, I must conclude that President Clinton did touch Ms. Lewinsky. I must then further conclude that, because Mr. Clinton was making a statement to Mrs. Currie that the President knew to be false, he could only have made such a claim in order to improperly persuade Mrs. Currie to testify that President Clinton had never touched Ms. Lewinsky. In his grand jury testimony, President Clinton admitted that he did not allow Mrs. Currie to ``watch whatever intimate activity [the President] did with Ms. Lewinsky.'' In addition, when asked whether he would ``not have engaged in those physically intimate acts if [the President] knew that Mrs. Currie could see or hear that,'' President Clinton responded ``[t]hat's correct.'' However, on the Sunday after he was deposed in the Paula Jones' case, Mr. Clinton told Mrs. Currie ``You could see and hear everything, right?'' I find these two concepts to be inherently contradictory. President Clinton could not, on the one hand, shield Mrs. Currie from seeing or hearing any intimate activity, while, on the other hand, be sincerely stating that Mrs. Currie could see and hear everything. I must then conclude that President Clinton made this statement in an attempt to improperly persuade Ms. Currie to testify that President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in no activity that Mrs. Currie could neither see nor hear. D. On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. On January 21, 1998, President Clinton met with Sidney Blumenthal, a senior White House aide. During the course of their conversation, Mr. Blumenthal asked President Clinton what the President had done wrong. According to Mr. Blumenthal, the President responded ``[n]othing'' and ``I haven't done anything wrong.'' Mr. Blumenthal asked the President why, if he had done nothing wrong, would the President want to appear on television and admit wrongdoing, which is what the President implied he wanted to do. At that point, according to Mr. Blumenthal, the President stated that ``Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me'' and that the President had rebuffed her. Mr. Blumenthal also testified that the President claimed that Ms. Lewinsky threatened the President, telling him ``that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker any more.'' According to Mr. Blumenthal, President Clinton also stated that ``I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out.'' When Mr. Blumenthal asked the President whether Mr. Clinton had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, the President replied ``I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'' Based upon the grand jury testimony presented by Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton, and upon the deposition provided to the Senate by Ms. Lewinsky as well as the President's failure to provide the Senate with a deposition, I have concluded that the statements made by President Clinton to Mr. Blumenthal are false. If the President had agreed to be deposed by the Senate, his testimony might have strengthened the credibility of the statements that he had to Mr. Blumenthal. However, the credibility of such statements have no foundation in the evidence presented to the Senate. As a result, I must conclude that President Clinton had a motive other than an interest in conveying the truth when he made these statements to Mr. Blumenthal. President Clinton has tried to argue that the President made these statements to Mr. Blumenthal, not to obstruct justice, but merely to mislead him. However, when asked whether he knew that Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta might be called into a grand jury, President Clinton responded ``That's right.'' Therefore, I must conclude that President Clinton lied to Sidney Blumenthal in order to plant false testimony on a potential grand jury witness, a witness the President himself admits he knew might be called. John Podesta testified that President Clinton had told Mr. Podesta that the President ``had never had sex with her [Ms. Lewinsky] in any way whatsoever.'' Mr. Podesta further testified that President Clinton elaborated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky ``had not engaged in [sexual activity that falls within the definition of sexual relations as President Clinton understood the term to be defined in the Paula Jones case].'' As stated above, Mr. Clinton acknowledges that he knew that Mr. Podesta might be called as a witness by the grand jury. As also discussed above, it is my opinion, based on the evidence, that President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky did engage in sexual activity that falls within the definition of sexual relations as President Clinton understood the term to be defined in the Paula Jones case. As a result, Mr. Clinton lied to Mr. Podesta. In addition, because President Clinton knew that Mr. Podesta might be called as a witness by the grand jury, I must conclude that the President lied to Mr. Podesta, not simply to mislead him and his White House colleagues, but in order to plant false testimony on a potential grand jury witness. high crimes and misdemeanors Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury and Obstruction of Justice do rise to the level of being a ``high crime or misdemeanor'' that is the standard set forth in the Constitution for impeachment. Indeed in recent years the United States Senate has impeached two federal judges for perjury. Where we not to remove the President for the same offense we would be breaking established precedent. Furthermore, would it be right to set a lower standard for the President than the judges he appoints? I think not. The President must be held to the same standard, if not a higher one. Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government. If the President can lie under oath, others will plead the same defense, sacrificing the truth. The President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the land. He or she should be the ultimate example of a law-abiding citizen, not one who willfully and repeatedly violates the law when it serves his or her narrow interest. The unlawful actions by the President will have the long term effect of reducing compliance with the law by others if the President can get away with it. The Constitution states that impeachment and removal is to occur when ``the President, Vice President and all civil officers'' commit ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I find bribery and perjury to be offenses of the same nature. Both seek to thwart well established legal processes. Bribery seeks to produce an outcome different from justice by obscuring our priorities. Perjury seeks to produce an outcome different from justice by obscuring the truth. Obstruction of justice committed by the President undermines the entire judicial system and is thus a crime against the nation falling clearly in the category of a ``high crime.'' concluding comments Whether or not the vote taken today is considered a victory for President Clinton, it will be, in many ways, a loss for America. We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House's public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards. It is hard to imagine that a generation or two ago, a majority of Americans would have greeted news of Presidential crimes and cover-ups with a shrug. We did not expect our leaders to be perfect, but we did expect them to provide moral leadership, and to obey the laws they were charged with upholding and executing. We expected Presidents to commit sins; but we would not allow them to commit crimes. We held the office of the Presidency, and the honor of the nation, in the highest esteem. We looked to the leaders of our nation as examples to admire, rather than avoid. Parents would point to the President of the United States and tell their son or daughter that if they worked hard and did right, they might one day hold that office. That is not so today. Perhaps in the future the admiration of that office can be restored. Our loss is compounded by the manner of our response. In many quarters, the news of Presidential perjury and obstruction of justice has been greeted with a shrug, if not a wink. We are no longer outraged by the outrageous. We have grown comfortable with presidential misconduct, even as we prosecute, convict, and imprison the less powerful for the same crimes. If we are to believe the media, much of our reluctance to enforce the laws of our land springs from our material concerns. We have heard, from many quarters, the assertion that things are good in America, we are at peace, the stock market is doing well, so why rock the boat? Why shake things up? We seem to have forgotten that all of our prosperity would be impossible without the rule of law, and without a cultural predisposition to honor and uphold the law. Reducing the administration of justice to opinion polls debases our country. Putting pocketbook concerns over standards of right and wrong impoverishes our culture. If we do not sustain the moral and legal foundation on which our system of government and our prosperity is based, both will surely and steadily diminish. The great southern writer Walker Percy once stated that his greatest fear for our future was that of ``seeing America, with all of her great strength and beauty and freedom . . . . gradually subside into decay through default and be defeated . . . from within by weariness, boredom, cynicism, greed, and in the end, helplessness before its great problems.'' I am optimistic about our future, but this point is an important one. America is at a place in history where our great enemies have been defeated. Our economy is strong, our incomes up, our expectations high. We are the only remaining world superpower. Our future looks bright. But our continued success is not a historical certainty. It will be determined by the character of our nation--by the condition of our culture, as much as our economy. The standards we hold--for ourselves, and for our leaders--are a good indicator of what we soon shall be. For all of the reasons described above, I have chose, with great sadness but firm resolve to vote for the conviction and removal of William Jefferson Clinton as President of the United States of America.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, cosponsored by several of my colleagues that would reform the current pay-as-you-go financing mechanism of our federal government. As a critical step to help reform the federal government, I believe that we need to change Congressional Budget Rules that make it illegal to use cuts in inefficient government spending to pay for tax cuts. Over the past century, our budget rules have been written in a way that favors spending over savings. We must fundamentally reform Pay-as-you- go (PAYGO) financing this year beyond the current law understanding which effectively turns PAYGO off during periods of an on-budget surplus. Currently, according to PAYGO, Congress cannot make cuts in wasteful, even harmful government discretionary spending programs in order to finance tax cuts. For example, we can't cut the Advanced Technology Program in the Department of Commerce to pay for a capital gains tax cut. Rather, Congress has to make cuts in popular mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for its tax cuts. I believe it is wrong to pit Social Security and Medicare against tax cuts. We need to flip the table on this false trade off by pitting tax cuts against wasteful big government spending. Such a change would amount to a paradigm shift in how government functions and would help limit the size of government while at the same time providing additional resources for meaningful tax relief. The machinery of government is constructed to spend. We need reengineering of government so that the machinery produces savings. My bill would change budget law in order to allow for tax cuts to be implemented in the amount of program eliminations. In practice, if we are able to eliminate a program during consideration of an appropriations measure, that money would be credited to the PAYGO scorecard and reserved for tax cuts. Therefore, should my bill be enacted, we could eliminate programs like the Advance Technology Program, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Commerce, and a whole host of other government programs while at the same time giving the taxpayers the tax relief they deserve--and we can do it without making draconian cuts to mandatory spending programs that ultimately do little to save the programs and much to simply prolong the crisis. Mr. President, I look forward to the coming debate on budget process reforms. I look forward to the bill that is being considered jointly by the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees, and I look forward to working with the chairmen of each in order to accomplish the type of budget reform that we truly need.