J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to offer an amendment to S. 4 with my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Landrieu. Of course, S. 4 is the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This legislation will give the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. S. 4 offers this benefit to their active duty counterparts. Our amendment will offer this to men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. The Thrift Savings Plan is an excellent way for military families to save for the future. It is not meant to take the place of a retirement system. It is a tax-deferred savings plan that will grow while a service member is actually serving, unlike the delayed benefits of the military retirement system. Furthermore, the Thrift Savings Plan is a portable benefit that can be rolled over into a civilian 401(k) plan, in the event the service member, for whatever reason, must leave military service. In my opinion, the men and women of the Guard and Reserve must be given the same opportunity to participate in this excellent savings pan as their active duty counterparts. Although the amount of money they will be able to deposit in the Thrift Savings Plan may not be substantial at first, every dollar counts. The Thrift Savings board themselves allows contributions ``as little as a dollar each pay period.'' With the increase in worldwide taskings, Guardsmen and Reservists are participating significantly above and beyond their mandatory one- weekend-a-month and two-weeks-a-year duty, their contributions will grow over time. While some Guardsmen and Reservists may have savings plans through their civilian employers, allowing them to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan allows them to contribute based on their military earnings. For many Guardsmen and Reservists, their military duty has become a second job. Since the end of the cold war, the services have increasingly relied upon their Reserve components to meet worldwide obligations. The active duty force has been reduced by one-third, yet worldwide commitments have increased dramatically. In recent years, thousands of Reservists and Guardsmen have supported contingencies, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions around the world: in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Kenya, just to name a few. Guard and Reserve units responded immediately to requests for assistance after Hurricane Mitch, delivering over 10 million pounds of humanitarian aid to devastated areas in Central America. Closer to home, Reserve and National Guard personnel answered the cries for help after devastating floods struck in our Nation's heartland. They braved high winds and water to fill sandbags, provide security, and transport food, fresh water, medical supplies, and disaster workers to affected areas. The Air Force Reserve's ``Hurricane Hunters'' routinely fly into tropical storms and hurricanes in specially configured C-130s to collect data to improve forecast accuracy, which dramatically minimizes losses due to the destructive forces of these storms. As we transition into the high-tech 21st century, the Guard and Reserve will continue to take on new and exciting roles. The Guard and Reserve now have units performing satellite control and security functions in order to maintain our country's lead in space-based technology. And, because our country faces the increased threat of chemical and biological weapons, the White House, the Department of Defense, and Congress have joined to develop a ``Homeland Defense'' policy designed to respond to threats against the United States. The Guard and Reserve will play a significant role in the implementation of the policy, because their knowledge of local emergency response plans and infrastructure is critical to an effective response. The days of holding our Reserve Component forces ``in reserve'' are long gone. Just who are these citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines? They are doctors, they are lawyers. They are farmers, grocers, teachers and small business owners. They have longstanding roots in communities across our great country. And, like their active-duty counterparts, they have volunteered to serve. Remarkably, they must balance their service with the demands of their full-time civilian jobs and families. In September 1997, Secretary of Defense Cohen wrote a memorandum acknowledging an increased reliance on the Reserve Components. He called upon the services to remove all remaining barriers to achieving a ``seamless Total Force.'' He has also said that without Reservists, ``we can't do it in Bosnia, we can't do it in the Gulf, we can't do it anywhere. Giving the men and women who serve in the Reserve Components the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan would carry on the spirit of Secretary Cohen's Total Force policy. This amendment has received the resounding support of the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and other members of the military coalition representing 5.5 million active and retired members. The Reserve Components face many of the same challenges and dangers as their active duty counterparts in this time of high operations tempo. We should give them the same opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. It is important to send the right message to our citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines: that we recognize and appreciate their sacrifices. It's the right thing to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to S. 4. I think the clerk has the amendment. It is a 3-year extension of special pay bonuses.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, Deborah Buonassisi, be granted floor privileges to assist me during the debate of S. 4.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Gordon Sherman, of Dunwoody, Georgia, who after more than four decades of dedicated service to the Social Security Administration retired on December 31, 1998. He is an outstanding example to his family and friends, and has been an asset to the many communities that he has touched over the years. Gordon has more than 40 years of combined military and civilian federal service. He began working for the Social Security Administration in 1958 and has served as the Southeast Regional Commissioner to the Social Security Administration (SSA) since October 1975. In this role, he has been responsible for supervision, coordination, executive leadership, and effective and efficient administration of the Social Security program in the eight southeastern states. As a career senior governmental executive, he has received many awards in honor of his noteworthy accomplishments and outstanding leadership over the years. Several of Gordon's most prestigious awards are the U.S. Army Legion of Merit medal, two Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Awards, the National Public Service Award from the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the coveted Ewell T. Bartlett National Award for Humanity in Government, and the national ``Making the King Holiday Award'' from the Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday Commission for his assistance in making this holiday a reality. As a native of Alabama, he graduated from Auburn University with a B.S. degree and received J.D. and LL.M degrees, as well as an honorary LL.D from Woodrow Wilson College of Law and completed the Senior Managers in Government (SMG) program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Gordon and his wife Miriam are also associated with several business, educational, professional, civic, service and volunteer organizations in the Dunwoody area. Mr. President, I would like to honor and commend Gordon Sherman for his outstanding and innumerable contributions over the years to the State of Georgia and to our entire Nation, and ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting and congratulating Gordon on his retirement. Gordon, you truly are a great American, and I wish you many more joyous years in the future.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. and MediaOne cable company for sponsoring a special educational event for students in the metropolitan Atlanta area commemorating Black History Month. In recognition of Black History Month, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time-Warner company, and MediaOne cable company are hosting a special educational event on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at the ``Magic'' Johnson Theater in Atlanta, Georgia. This event will serve as a venue to screen Turner Network's Original film, ``Passing Glory,'' and engage students in after-viewing discussion. Inspired by a true story about two undefeated high school basketball teams in segregation-era Louisiana, ``Passing Glory,'' is a powerful study about the discovery of mutual respect which crosses racial boundaries. Father Joseph Verrett ignites the sparks of the Civil Rights movement in New Orleans when he organizes a game between his own undefeated African American team and an undefeated prep school team from a white community. Along with his star player, he must overcome the fears and prejudices of the city's residents, both black and white, to forever change the established social order. Turner Broadcasting and MediaOne are sponsoring this local educational event during Black History Month to offer students the opportunity to discuss the themes of the film, such as tolerance, teamwork, diversity, and racism. The forum will provide a venue for students to question civil rights experts and renowned sports figures about the history of segregation and the role that sports has played in bridging the racial divide. This type of forum will motivate students to explore the history of race relations in this country and encourage dialogue which will foster understanding, the identification of common ground and a genuine commitment to afford equal opportunity and civil rights for people of all races, religions and ethnic origins. It is the human rights of all mankind that underpins the dignity and humanity of all people and a worthy goal to which we must all continue to aspire. Mr. President, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing and honoring Turner Broadcasting and MediaOne on many years of worthwhile work and achievements which have culminated with their most recent collaborative educational project on behalf of the many students of the Atlanta area in honor of Black History Month.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, when S. 4 is debated in the Senate, I intend to offer an amendment to expand the Thrift Savings Plan to allow the participation of members of the Ready Reserve. The 1.5 million members of the Reserve Components make up half of our military forces. They are contributing to our military efforts at home and around the world every day of the year, side-by-side with their active duty counterparts. We are using our Reserve component personnel more often and for a broader range of missions and operations then ever before. Since the end of the Cold War, members of the Reserve Components have participated at record levels. In fact, over 17,000 Reservists and Guardsmen have answered the Nation's call to bring peace to Bosnia. Nearly 270,000 Reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Numerous Guard and Reserve units from all corners of the United States responded immediately to requests for assistance in the wake of Hurricane Mitch, delivering over 10 million pounds of humanitarian aid to devastated areas in Central America. Closer to home, Reserve and National Guard personnel answered the cries for help after devastating floods struck in North and South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. They braved high winds and water to fill sandbags, provide security, and transport food, fresh water, medical supplies and disaster workers to the affected areas. And the Air Force Reserve's ``Hurricane Hunters'' are the only Department of Defense organization that routinely flies into tropical storms and hurricanes to collect data to improve forecast accuracy, which dramatically minimizes losses due to the destructive forces of these storms. These are but a few examples of what members of the Guard and Reserve do on a daily basis. What amazes me most is that many take part in these important military operations on a volunteer basis, and have to balance these demands with those of their full-time civilian careers and their families. In September 1997, Secretary of Defense Cohen wrote a memorandum acknowledging an increased reliance on the Reserve Components. He called upon the Services to remove all remaining barriers to achieving a ``seamless Total Force.'' He has also said that without Reservists, ``we can't do it in Bosnia, we can't do it in the Gulf, we can't do it anywhere.'' The Reserve Components will, without a doubt, play an integral role in our national military strategy of the 21st century. Allowing members who serve in the Reserve Components to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan would carry on the spirit of Secretary Cohen's Total Force policy at virtually no additional cost. But, most importantly, doing so sends a message to our citizen soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that we recognize and appreciate their sacrifices.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow original cosponsors, I am proud to introduce legislation which will provide a valuable protection for America's small businesses. This initiative would permit the Small Business Administration to use up to $15 million of existing disaster funds to establish a pilot program to provide small businesses with low-interest, long-term disaster loans to finance preventive measures before a disaster hits. Across the nation, increasing costs and personal devastation associated with disasters continually plague communities. While it may be impossible to prevent disasters, we believe that this legislation makes it possible to limit the number of disaster victims. In response to the financial and human toll caused by disasters, the administration launched an approach to emergency management that moves away from the current reliance on response and recovery to one that emphasizes preparedness and prevention. The Federal Emergency Management Agency established its Project Impact Program to assist disaster-prone communities in developing strategies to avoid the crippling effects of natural disasters. Our legislation supports this approach by allowing the SBA to begin a pilot program that would be limited to small businesses within those communities that are eligible to receive disaster loans after a disaster has been declared. Currently, SBA disaster loans may only be used to repair or replace existing protective devices that are destroyed or damaged by a disaster. The pilot program authorized by our proposal would allow funds to also be used to install new mitigation devices that will prevent future damage. We believe that such a program would address two areas of need for small business--reducing the costs of recovery from a disaster and reducing the costs of future disasters. Furthermore, by cutting those future costs, the program presents an excellent investment for taxpayers by decreasing the Federal and State funding required to meet future disaster relief needs. The ability of a small business to borrow money through the Disaster Loan Program to help make their facility disaster resistant could mean the difference as to whether that small business owner is able to reopen or forced to go out of business altogether after a disaster hits. On behalf of my fellow cosponsors, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to facilitate disaster prevention measures. Upon passage of this legislation, the costs in terms of property, taxpayer dollars, and lives will be reduced when nature strikes in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow original cosponsors, I am proud to introduce legislation which will provide a valuable protection for America's small businesses. This initiative would permit the Small Business Administration to use up to $15 million of existing disaster funds to establish a pilot program to provide small businesses with low-interest, long-term disaster loans to finance preventive measures before a disaster hits. Across the nation, increasing costs and personal devastation associated with disasters continually plague communities. While it may be impossible to prevent disasters, we believe that this legislation makes it possible to limit the number of disaster victims. In response to the financial and human toll caused by disasters, the administration launched an approach to emergency management that moves away from the current reliance on response and recovery to one that emphasizes preparedness and prevention. The Federal Emergency Management Agency established its Project Impact Program to assist disaster-prone communities in developing strategies to avoid the crippling effects of natural disasters. Our legislation supports this approach by allowing the SBA to begin a pilot program that would be limited to small businesses within those communities that are eligible to receive disaster loans after a disaster has been declared. Currently, SBA disaster loans may only be used to repair or replace existing protective devices that are destroyed or damaged by a disaster. The pilot program authorized by our proposal would allow funds to also be used to install new mitigation devices that will prevent future damage. We believe that such a program would address two areas of need for small business--reducing the costs of recovery from a disaster and reducing the costs of future disasters. Furthermore, by cutting those future costs, the program presents an excellent investment for taxpayers by decreasing the Federal and State funding required to meet future disaster relief needs. The ability of a small business to borrow money through the Disaster Loan Program to help make their facility disaster resistant could mean the difference as to whether that small business owner is able to reopen or forced to go out of business altogether after a disaster hits. On behalf of my fellow cosponsors, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to facilitate disaster prevention measures. Upon passage of this legislation, the costs in terms of property, taxpayer dollars, and lives will be reduced when nature strikes in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I intend to offer an amendment to S. 4 when it is debated in the Senate to extend the authority to pay certain bonuses and special pays for three years. These special incentives are critical to recruiting and retention of military personnel. This amendment will be a significant improvement to S. 4 because it is narrowly focused on enlistment and retention incentives. Although these bonuses and special pays are in effect now, the authority to pay them expires on December 31, 1999. These bonuses and special pays are proven recruiting and retention incentives. Our Service Personnel Chiefs need to know that they will continue to be available for the long term to address recruiting and retention shortfalls. They should not have to wonder if the authority to pay them will be renewed a year at a time. By extending the authority to pay these bonuese and special pays for three years, we give the Services valuable tools the Chiefs need to address a very real and complex problem.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that the reason we are here today, the reason the United States Senate is being asked to exercise what Alexander Hamilton termed the ``awful discretion'' of impeachment, is because of the wrongful, reprehensible, indefensible conduct of one person, the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton. Indeed, I believe it is conduct deserving of the censure of the Senate, and I will support such a resolution when it comes before us. The question before the Senate, however, is not whether the President's conduct was wrong, or immoral, or even censurable. We must decide solely as to whether or not he should be convicted of the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment and thus removed from office. In my opinion, the case for removal, presented in great detail in the massive 60,000 page report submitted by the House, in many hours of very capable but often repetitive presentations to the Senate by the House Managers and the President's defense team, and in many additional hours of Senators' questioning of the two sides, fails to meet the very high standards which we must demand with respect to Presidential impeachments. Therefore, I will vote to dismiss the impeachment case against William Jefferson Clinton, and to vote for the Senate resuming other necessary work for the American people. To this very point, I have reserved my judgment on this question because of my Constitutional responsibility and Oath to ``render impartial justice'' in this case. Most of the same record presented in great detail to Senators in the course of the last several weeks has long been before the public, and indeed most of that public, including editorial boards, talk show hosts, and so forth, long ago reached their own conclusions as to the impeachment of President Clinton. But I have now heard enough to make my decision. With respect to the witnesses the House Managers apparently now wish to depose and call before the Senate, the existing record represents multiple interrogations by the Office of the Independent Counsel and its Grand Jury, with not only no cross-examinations by the President's counsel but, with the exception of the President's testimony, without even the presence of the witnesses' own counsel. It is difficult for me to see how that record would possibly be improved from the prosecution's standpoint. Thus, I will not support motions to depose or call witnesses. In reaching my decision on impeachment, there are a number of factors which have been discussed or speculated about in the news media which were not a part of my calculations. First of all, while as political creatures neither the Senate nor the House can or should be immune from public opinion, we have a very precise Constitutionally-prescribed responsibility in this matter, and popular opinion must not be a controlling consideration. I believe Republican Senator William Pitt Fessenden of Maine said it best during the only previous Presidential Impeachment Trial in 1868: To the suggestion that popular opinion demands the conviction of the President on these charges, I reply that he is not now on trial before the people, but before the Senate . . . The people have not heard the evidence as we have heard it. The responsibility is not on them, but upon us. They have not taken an oath to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.'' I have taken that oath. I cannot render judgment upon their convictions, nor can they transfer to themselves my punishment if I violate my own. And I should consider myself undeserving of the confidence of that just and intelligent people who imposed upon me this great responsibility, and unworthy of a place among honorable men, if for any fear of public reprobation, and for the sake of securing popular favor, I should disregard the convictions of my judgment and my conscience. Nor was my decision premised on the notion, suggested by some, that the stability of our government would be severely jeopardized by the impeachment of President Clinton. I have full faith in the strength of our government and its leaders and, more importantly, faith in the American people to cope successfully with whatever the Senate decides. There can be no doubt that the impeachment of a President would not be easy for the country but just in this Century, about to end, we have endured great depressions and world wars. Today, the U.S. economy is strong, the will of the people to move beyond this national nightmare is great, and we have an experienced and able Vice President who is more than capable of stepping up and assuming the role of the President. Third, although we have heard much argument that the precedents of judicial impeachments should be controlling in this case, I have not been convinced and did not rely on such testimony in making my decision. After a review of the record, historical precedents, and consideration of the different roles of Presidents and federal judges, I have concluded that there is indeed a different legal standard for impeachment of Presidents and federal judges. Article 11, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that ``the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Article III, Section I of the Constitution indicates that judges ``shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.'' Presidents are elected by the people and serve for a fixed term of years, while federal judges are appointed without public approval to serve a life tenure without any accountability to the public. Therefore, under our system, impeachment is the only way to remove a federal judge from office while Presidents serve for a specified term and face accountability to the public through elections. With respect to the differing impeachment standards themselves, Chief Justice Rehnquist once wrote, ``the terms `treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors' are narrower than the malfeasance in office and failure to perform the duties of the office, which may be grounds for forfeiture of office held during good behavior.'' And my conclusions with respect to impeachment were not based upon considerations of the proper punishment of President Clinton for his misdeeds. During the impeachment of President Nixon, the Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry concluded that ``impeachment is the first step in a remedial process--removal from office and possible disqualification from holding future office. The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.'' Regardless of the outcome of the Senate impeachment trial, President Clinton remains subject to censure by the House and Senate, and criminal prosecution for any crimes he may have committed. Whatever punishment President Clinton deserves for his misdeeds will be provided elsewhere. Finally, I do not believe that perjury or obstruction of justice could never rise to the level of threatening grievous harm to the Republic, and thus represent adequate grounds for removal of a President. However, we must approach such a determination with the greatest of care. Impeachment of a President is, perhaps with the power to declare War, the gravest of Constitutional responsibilities bestowed upon the Congress. During the history of the United States, the Senate has only held impeachment trials for two Presidents, the 1868 trial of President Johnson, who had not been elected to that office, and now President Clinton. Although the Senate can look to impeachment trials of other public officials, primarily judicial, as I have already said, I do not believe that those precedents are or should be controlling in impeachment trials of Presidents, or indeed of other elected officials. My decision was based on one overriding concern: the impact of this precedent-setting case on the future of the Presidency, and indeed of the Congress itself. It is not Bill Clinton who should occupy our only attention. He already stands rebuked by the House impeachment votes, and by the words of virtually every member of Congress of both political parties. And even if we do not remove him from office, he still stands liable to future criminal prosecution for his actions, as well as to the verdict of history. No, it is Mr. Clinton's successors, Republican, Democrat or any other Party, who should be our concern. The Republican Senator, Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, who ``looked down into my open grave'' of political oblivion when he cast one of the decisive votes in acquitting Andrew Johnson in spite of his personal dislike of the President explained his motivation this way: . . . In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial . . . If . . . the President must step down . . . upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative will. It would practically have revolutionized our splendid political fabric into a partisan Congressional autocracy. While our government is certainly on a stronger foundation now than in the aftermath of the Civil War, the basic point remains valid. If anything, in today's world of rapidly emerging events and threats, we need an effective, independent Presidency even more than did mid-19th Century Americans. While in the history of the United States the U.S. Senate has never before considered impeachment articles against a sitting elected official, we do have numerous cases of each House exercising its Constitutional right to, ``punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a Member.'' However, since the Civil War, while a variety of cases involving personal and private misconduct have been considered, the Senate has never voted to expel a member, choosing to censure instead on seven occasions, and the House has rarely chosen the ultimate sanction. Should the removal of a President be subject to greater punishment with lesser standards of evidence than the Congress has applied to itself when the Constitution appears to call for the reverse in limiting impeachment to cases of ``treason, bribery and other high crimes or misdemeanors''? In my view, the answer must be NO. Thus, for me, as one United States Senator, the bar for impeachment and removal from office of a President must be a high one, and I want the record to reflect that my vote to dismiss is based upon a standard of evidence equivalent to that used in criminal proceedings--that is, that guilt must be proven ``beyond a reasonable doubt''--and a standard of impeachable offense which, in my view, conforms to the Founders' intentions that such an offense must be one which represents official misconduct threatening grievous harm to our whole system of government. To quote Federalist #65, Hamilton defined as impeachable, ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' As I have said before, I can conceive of instances in which both perjury and obstruction of justice would meet this test, and I certainly believe that most, if not all, capital crimes, including murder, would qualify for impeachment and removal from office. However, in my judgment, the current case does not reach the necessary high standard. In the words of John F. Kennedy, ``with a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds,'' I believe that dismissal of the impeachment case against William Jefferson Clinton is the appropriate action for the U.S. Senate. It is the action which will best preserve the system of government which has served us so well for over two hundred years, a system of checks and balances, with a strong and independent chief executive. In closing, I wish to address those in the Senate and House, and among the American public, who have reached a different conclusion than have I in this case. I do not question the sincerity or legitimacy of your viewpoint. The process itself pushes us to make absolute judgments--yes or no to conviction and removal from office--and the nature of debate yields portraits of complex issues in stark black-and- white terms, but I believe it is possible for reasonable people to reach different conclusions on this matter. Indeed, I recognize that, while my decision seeks to avoid the dangers of setting the impeachment bar too low, setting that bar too high is not without risks. I believe the House Managers spoke eloquently about the need to preserve respect for the rule of law, including the critical principle that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above that rule. However, I have concluded that the threat to our system of a weakened Presidency, made in some ways subordinate to the will of the legislative branch, outweighs the potential harm to the rule of law, because that latter risk is mitigated by: An intact, independent criminal justice system, which indeed will retain the ability to render final, legal judgment on the President's conduct; A vigorous, independent press corps which remains perfectly capable of exposing such conduct, and of extracting a personal, professional and political price; and An independent Congress which will presumably continue to have the will and means to oppose Presidents who threaten our system of government. By the very nature of this situation, where I sit in judgment of a Democratic President as a Democratic Senator, I realize that my decision cannot convey the non-partisanship which is essential to achieve closure on this matter, one way or the other. Indeed, in words which could have been written today, the chief proponent among the Founding Fathers of a vigorous Chief Executive, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in 1788, in No. 65 of The Federalist Papers, that impeachments ``will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide them into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstration of guilt or innocence.'' I have, however, in making my decision laid out for you the standards which I believe to be appropriate whenever the Congress considers the removal from office of an elected official, whether Executive Branch, or Legislative Branch. I will do my best to stand by those standards in all such cases to come before me while I have the privilege of representing the people of Georgia in the United States Senate, regardless of the party affiliation of the accused. I only hope and pray that no future President, of either Party, will ever again engage in conduct which provides any basis, including the basis of the current case, for the Congress to consider the grave question of impeachment.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Major General William P. Bland, Jr., a native of Statesboro, Georgia, who after more than four decades of dedicated service to the State of Georgia and to this country as an officer in the Georgia National Guard, is retiring and coming home to the Savannah area. On January 31, 1999, Maj. Gen. Bland will be honored during a retirement ceremony at the 165th Airlift Wing's headquarters in Savannah, where he started his career with the Georgia Air National Guard in 1962. General Bland began his military service with the 165th Tactical Airlift Group in Savannah and later served as Deputy Commander of the Air National Guard at Air National Guard Support Center at Andrews Air Force Base. During the past eight years he has served as the Adjutant General for Georgia during which time he and his staff responded to blizzards and floods, directed 15,000 National Guardsmen for Olympic security, beefed up training for Guard volunteers, upgraded the state's military capabilities and reorganized the state defense department. As adjutant general, Bland led the Georgia Department of Defense and commanded more than 12,000 volunteer and full-time members of the Georgia Army and Air National Guards. Bill's most challenging year as adjutant general came in 1996. He supervised the largest relocation of an Air National Guard unit in history with the move of the 116th Bomb Wing, which included 1,000 people and eight B-1 bomber airplanes, to Robins Air Force Base near Macon. The bomb wing's move helps ensure Robins' future as a military base because the B-1 is one of the Air Force's newest bombers and will remain in active service for many years to come. Bland also oversaw the 48th Infantry Brigade's deployment to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, and witnessed the deployment of two units of the Georgia Army National Guard to Bosnia. However, the most demanding duty in Bland's career came with the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta when he organized 15,000 National Guard volunteers from 47 states to help with security. Most recently he restructured the state Department of Defense by changing the department's contracting system and placing the Army and Air Guard recruiting under one office. General Bland has made a positive impact on the lives of many Americans and personifies the definition of a true and loyal American who sets the standard for all citizens to live by. He is an outstanding example to his family and friends, and has been an asset to the many communities, states and nations that he has touched over the years. Mr. President, I would like to honor and commend Major General William Bland for his outstanding and innumerable contributions over the years to the State of Georgia and to our entire nation, and I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and congratulating Bill on his retirement and in wishing him many more joyous and successful years to come.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Benjamin H. Hardy, Jr., an outstanding Georgian whose insight and courage helped shape the course for U.S. foreign policy for decades and paved the way for the people of many nations to improve their lives. On January 20th, 1949, precisely fifty years ago today, President Harry Truman gave his inaugural address to the nation and, in doing so, spelled out his four point plan for U.S. foreign policy. The first three points of the plan were consistent with President Truman's previous policies in support of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan and our NATO allies. The fourth point of the plan, however, was a ``bold new program'' to provide technical assistance to developing nations which subsequently became known as ``Point Four.'' The idea for the new assistance program was developed by Mr. Hardy, who, at the time, was serving as a public affairs officer in the Department of State. Mr. Hardy had seen the rewards of technical assistance while working in Brazil and knew that this type of assistance was the key to unleashing the potential of so many developing countries. According to various accounts, Mr. Hardy risked his career to bring his brilliant proposal to light and, ultimately, assisted in drafting the foreign policy portion of President Truman's address. Responding to a White House request for new initiatives in foreign affairs, Mr. Hardy produced his plan. However, his plan was not received favorably by the upper levels of the State Department and was sent back for ``further review''--virtually killing the idea. Refusing to give up, Mr. Hardy bypassed the normal channels of bureaucratic red tape and policy review and went directly to a contact inside the White House. There, Mr. Hardy's development plan was greeted much more favorably and soon made its way to President Truman's desk and, later, into the President's State of the Union address. Point Four received widespread acclaim and, soon after Truman's address, Congress created the Technical Cooperation Administration within the Department of State. Mr. Hardy went on to serve as chief of public affairs and chairman of the Administration's policy planning committee. On December 23rd of 1951 Mr. Hardy was killed in a plane crash along with the director of the Technical Cooperation Administration, Dr. Henry Bennet. Soon, the Technical Cooperation Administration was transformed into the agencies responsible for foreign aid but the Point Four idea, remains vibrant today. It survives in the U.S. Agency for International Development, the agency which works to develop, train, educate, and strengthen democracy in the most needy countries across the globe. Were it not for the determination of Mr. Benjamin Hardy, these agencies, and their successes, may never have been realized. Benjamin Hardy is a wonderful example of one person making a difference in the world and I am honored today to recognize the indelible mark this distinguished Georgian has left upon the history of this nation and the people of the world.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Robb, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Bingaman, Lieberman, Landrieu, Reed, and Daschle--The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. I strongly believe that this bill represents an excellent step toward providing the men and women of the military a clear signal that we the people of the United States and we the members of the Congress of the United States value their contributions, understand their needs and concerns, and understand our obligations to provide for those who have answered the calling to defend our Nation. The signal that we send to the people in the military and to the people of the United States should be one of hope and opportunity, and one that understands the critical needs of military members and their families. Twenty-five years ago Americans opted to end the draft and to establish an all-volunteer military force to provide for our national security. That policy carried with it a requirement that we invest the needed resources to bring into existence a competent and professional military. Currently, all services are having difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified individuals. Seasoned, well-qualified personnel are leaving in alarming numbers. Specifically, the Navy is not making its recruiting goals. The Army cites pay and retirement, and overall quality of life as three of the top four reasons soldiers are leaving. The Air Force is currently 850 pilots short. The Marine Corps is hampered by inadequate funding of the pay and retirement and quality of life accounts in meeting its readiness and modernizing needs. All services, including the Guard and Reserve Components, are experiencing similar recruiting and retention problems. These shortfalls must be addressed if our Nation is to continue to have a highly capable, cutting edge military force. In light of our recent successful operations around the world, in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve in our armed forces, which is the goal of the legislation I am introducing today. Equally important, this bill, for the first time in a long time, addresses the immediate family members of our brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 addresses the concerns of Secretary of Defense Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress regarding recruiting a strong, viable military force for the 21st Century. It also significantly assists in retaining the right military personnel for the 21st Century. If we fail today to address these key issues, now when we have the combination of a strong economy, a relatively positive budget outlook, and a world which is largely at peace, we may well have missed a key window of opportunity. The bill we are introducing today goes a long way toward eliminating the deficiencies that we all have recently heard so much about from the Chiefs and a myriad of experts who are greatly concerned about the readiness of our military force, especially as we look a few years ahead. Military experts, defense journalists, former Secretaries of Defense, former Service Chiefs, former theater Commanders in Chief, research and development specialists and even civilian industry leaders agree: the number one factor undergirding our superpower military status is the people of our Armed Forces. This critical ingredient means something different today than it did on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, or in fact even on the deserts of Kuwait. Today, the people of our military are as dedicated, as committed, as patriotic as any force we have ever fielded. They are, in fact, smarter, better trained, and more technically adept than any who we have ever counted upon to defend our Nation. Operation Desert Fox proved this fact. This flawless, but dangerous and stressful, operation involved 40,000 troops from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 shops performed around the clock strikes and support. Six hundred aircraft sorties were flown in four days, and over 300 of these were night strike operations. And this massive effort was carried out without a single loss of American or British life! In contrast to this and other post-Vietnam successes, consider the problems which face the people in uniform. New global security threats and our strong economy each exert enormous pressures on the people in the military and their families. By some measures the pay for our military personnel lags 13 percent behind the civilian pay raises over the last 20 years. Yet, we ask our military to train on highly technical equipment, to commit themselves in harm's way, to leave their families, and to execute flawless operations. Sometimes these operations are new and different from any past military operations, but they can be just as dangerous. Meanwhile, some of our servicemen and women qualify for food stamps, do not have the same educational opportunities as their civilian counterparts, must deal with confusing and changing health benefits and/or can not find affordable housing. Something is badly wrong with this picture, and the Congress and the Administration must work together to set things right. Specifically, we need to recruit good people, continue to train them, and retain them in the military. This is difficult at best with the changes in our society, the rapidly changing threats to our security, and a prosperous economy. As I heard a service member say during a hearing I held at Ft. Gordon, Georgia last year, we recruit an individual, but we retain a family. Some of the recruiting and retention problems of today's United States military are well documented. Others need to be more thoroughly explored. They all need to be addressed. The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 is but the first step. It is the beginning. I caution my colleagues that today's servicemen and women, and their families, are intelligent and are quick to recognize duplicity in the words and actions of our civilian and military leadership. Our military's most important assets--its people--are leaving the military, and many of America's best are not even considering joining the military. We must proceed expeditiously, with firm purpose and unified non-partisanship if we are to reverse these dangerous trends. This bill responds to current data which provide some insight into how we can more effectively respond to today's youth and their service in the military. This 106th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to respond to today's military personnel problems. We must keep our focus on current and future personnel issues, including recognizing and responding to the need to retain a family. Our legislation does so. Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today includes all three parts of the Department of Defense's proposed pay and retirement package. It incorporates some of the recommendations made by the Congressionally mandated Principi Commission, and it provides some additional innovative ideas for addressing these key personnel issues, now and into the future. First, our bill provides a 4.8% pay raise across-the-board for all military members, effective January 1, 2000, and carries out the stated objective of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of bringing military pay more in line with private sector wages. This increase raises military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and represents the largest increase in military pay since 1982. Furthermore, and also in keeping with DoD's current plans, we would provide an annual increase in military pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the ECI in each year from FY2001 to FY2006. Another of the Joint Chiefs' recommendations included in our legislation is the targeted pay raise for mid-grade officers and enlisted personnel, and also for key promotion points. These raises, amounting to between 4.8 percent and 10.3 percent, which includes the January 1, 2000, pay raise and would be effective July 1, 2000. The third part of our legislation taken from the DOD plan is a revision in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, which would restore the 50 percent basic pay benefit for military members who retire at 20 years of service. I am proud to say that in addition to the pay and retirement benefits package proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, our legislation includes several key recommendations from the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, also known as the Principi Commission. These provisions are specifically designed to assist the military services in their recruiting and retention efforts. Information and data that we are seeing indicate that education benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to enter the armed services. This may be the single most important step this Congress can take in assisting recruitment. Improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill are needed, and our bill represents a vital move in that direction. In keeping with the Principi Commission, our legislation would increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to contribute $1,200 of their own money in order to participate in the program. These changes should dramatically increase the attractiveness of the GI Bill to potential recruits,and give our Service Secretaries a powerful recruiting incentive. Our legislation also adopts the Principi Commission recommendations to allow service members to transfer their earned GI Bill benefits to one or more immediate family members. Mr. President, this idea is innovative, it is powerful and it sends the right message to both those young people we are trying to attract into the military and those we are trying to retain. The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 includes a provision that would allow military members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal civil servants. Under this proposal, which adopts another recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan. Another section of our legislation extends for three years--through December 31, 2002--the authority for the military services to pay a number of bonuses and special incentive pays that are fundamental to recruiting and retaining highly skilled military members. The authority to pay these bonuses and special pay expires at the end of this year. By renewing this authority now through the end of 2002, we will provide military managers with these crucial retention tools. By acting now and for three years, the military members themselves will have greater confidence that these pay incentives will be available. Mr. President, based on our initial estimates, it is my understanding that the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us to increase the funding for national defense above the levels in the President's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. However, more precise costing will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office over the next several weeks. I know that all Members of the United States Senate are committed to the well-being of our servicemen and women and their families. They are doing their duty with honor and dignity. They are serving our country around the globe. They, along with their families, deserve our commitment. The bill we are introducing today is fair and will ensure that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in our armed forces. It represents the beginning of a process to provide hope and opportunity to those who wear the uniform of our Services. The President has announced a very good plan, as has the distinguished Majority Leader. We must move forward, together, in addressing these important personnel and readiness issues. In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Levin, and the other members of the Armed Services Committee who are co-sponsoring this legislation. We are all absolutely committed to the welfare of our servicemen and women and their families. They provide for us, and it is time for us to provide our obligation to them. I look forward to working with Senator Levin, Chairman Warner, and all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months ahead to honor that obligation. I know I speak for myself and all of my co-sponsors in pledging to do our utmost to achieve that goal. Mr. President, I now ask an unanimous consent that a summary and the text of the Military Recruitment and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 be printed into the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in the wake of final passage of S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, I wish to emphasize my interest in the retention and reinforcement of the recklessness standard of liability and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pleading standard in federal securities fraud cases. Securities law experts, including officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission, have recognized that the continued vitality of the federal securities laws and the health of the financial markets depend on the reaffirmation of this standard. It is essential that we be clear that reckless wrongdoing satisfies the scienter standard under the federal securities laws. The current standard that provides liability for reckless behavior should be explicitly reaffirmed; any suggestion that a victimized investor must establish actual knowledge by a defendant is not only legally incorrect but would undermine the integrity of our financial markets. The SEC has repeatedly stated in legal filings and Congressional testimony that the recklessness standard is critical to investor protection. Every federal appellate court that has considered this issue has held that recklessness suffices. The text of the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act did not change the scienter standard; Members of Congress understood that raising the standard would have not only a chilling effect on private actions by defrauded individuals, but on regulatory actions by the SEC. Since the 1995 Reform Act, there has been some disagreement in the courts about whether Congress intended to elevate the pleading standard in securities fraud class actions above the previously existing Second Circuit pleading standard. It is clear to me that the answer to the question must be ``no''. I am pleased that the Senate Banking Committee Report on S. 1260, as well as the recorded colloquy on the Senate floor about the Second Circuit pleading standard, reaffirm this point. As I mentioned in my floor statement during debate on this legislation, I am not convinced that the federal preemption of state anti-fraud protections is a necessary step. I support the right of investors to seek legal remedies against those persons selling fraudulent securities. While I worked to streamline the regulatory process in Georgia, I opposed amendments to federal regulations that would have impaired the ability of a state to protect its investors. Here in the Senate, my focus remains the same. For this reason, I opposed S. 1260 during its initial Senate consideration. Nevertheless, if passage of this legislation is inevitable, let us at least make it absolutely clear that an investor's right to seek redress through civil litigation is not eliminated due to a failure to reaffirm the existing standard of recklessness in federal securities fraud cases.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jennifer Wardrep, one of my finest employees who has worked for me, in one capacity or another, for five years. Jennifer came to work for my press office when I was the Secretary of State of Georgia. She had recently graduated from East Carolina University where she studied journalism and political science. Jennifer had a successful career in college, working for the student newspaper and rising to become its editor. In the Secretary of State's office, Jennifer quickly won my respect and that of her coworkers for her hard work and writing skills. She spent many long nights working in the Georgia Capitol to make it possible for the people of Georgia to receive the news of State elections, the new Motor Voter laws and all of the important work handled by that office. Her dedication to me, and that office, is something for which I am deeply in her debt. In December of 1995, Jennifer left the safety of her ``good government job'' for the exciting but temporary life of a political campaign. Once again, Jennifer came to work for me, on my long-shot attempt to become a United States Senator. If there ever was a time when I needed a good press person, it was then. Jennifer was a huge part of a successful media campaign that let the voters of Georgia decide for themselves who was best suited to represent them in the U.S. Senate. I remember one time in particular when we were traveling through South Georgia talking to several newspapers and many more voters. It was late in the campaign and we were all tired and ready for the election. Jennifer kept me on message as much as humanly possible and rewarded me with candy. This creative thinking is typical of Jennifer. As she and I will both affirm, it sometimes takes innovative approaches to confine me to one message. I went to bed on election night not knowing for certain if I had won the race. Early the next morning, my phone rang and woke me up. It was Jennifer and she said ``Good morning, Senator.'' The people of Georgia had heard our message of hope and opportunity, several news organizations wanted to interview me and this was my wake-up call. Jennifer was the first person to call me ``Senator.'' I will never forget that moment and I want to thank her very much for that. After the election, I asked Jennifer to come to Washington with me where she became my Press Secretary. The tenacious media in Washington was no match for her. Although the southern hospitality of Atlanta was nothing like the rough and tumble of Washington, Jennifer's experience paid off. Jennifer quickly established good relationships with the media and helped me share with the people of Georgia the work we were doing on campaign finance reform, Georgia's defense operations and many, many more things. Although I have said it many times, I truly believe that I have the best staff on Capitol Hill. And I truly believe I have the best Press Secretary on Capitol Hill as well. Jennifer has decided to move on to other things and I wish her the best of luck at whatever she does, although I doubt she will need it. Jennifer has served the people of Georgia well and served me extraordinarily well. Whether it was setting up press conferences, sending out news releases, writing PSA's, or recording Internet messages, Jennifer Wardrep is an irreplaceable part of my staff and will always be my ``Tiger'' in the press office.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the Internet, as an growing form of communication, commerce, and information exchange, is a powerful medium for all who are able to take advantage of the opportunities it presents. The initial version of S. 442, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, would, in my opinion, have provided this already powerful tool with even more competitive advantages. Frankly, I believed that the original version was too one-sided in aiding Internet-based businesses at the expense of other interests. However, I was very pleased with the willingness of the authors of this bill to address the concerns raised by state and local governments as well as ``Main Street'' business owners in such a way that I was able to support the final bill. The final version of S. 442 contains several positive features. Among those is the inclusion of the Hutchinson amendment, which will allow the Commission created by S. 442 to examine the impact of all types of remote sales. Every year states lose billions of dollars in revenue from remote sales, most recently via the Internet but also in catalog sales. The Hutchinson amendment, which is faithful to the recommendation of the Finance Committee, makes a proper and relevant expansion of the mandate of the Commission. Not all states and municipalities have imposed taxes on the Internet. However, those that have should not have their Constitutional right to impose these taxes stripped away by Congress. The grandfathering of existing taxes on electronic commerce contained in the final version of S. 442, is consistent with our federalist system and balances the needs of interstate commerce with the proper role of states and municipalities. Although these and other positive provisions in S. 442 allowed me to support the overall bill, I am hopeful that the initial concerns I had with S. 442 will not arise again when the three year moratorium established by the bill expires. The purpose of this temporary moratorium is to allow government and industry representatives time to work together to decide the rules for electronic commerce. However, S. 442 offers no guarantee that the moratorium will not be extended after the three year period. I supported Senator Graham's amendment that would have required a super majority to extend the moratorium, but unfortunately, it was defeated. There is a precedent of another ``temporary'' moratorium that never expired. In 1959, Congress enacted Public Law 86-272, which limited state corporate income tax collection on out-of-state corporations. Like the goal of the Commission created by S. 442, a moratorium was imposed to try to negotiate a uniform standard with regard to the tax treatment of out-of-state corporations. The results of P.L. 86-272 was an increase in litigation and a decrease in state and local tax revenue. This precedent explains state and local leaders' skepticism about a temporary Internet tax moratorium. It is my hope that when the three year moratorium expires, Congress will not extend the moratorium. The experience of P.L. 86-272 does not need to be repeated. I fear that a continuation of the moratorium would tilt the scales heavily in favor electronic commerce at the expense of local ``Main Street'' businesses. Internet sales should not receive any privileges that are not available to other forms of commerce. Business competitors of Internet-based firms should not have to experience such legalized discrimination. Although the use of computers will certainly continue to grow, there will always be consumers who will not have access to the Internet. If attempts are made to extend the three year moratorium, Congress will, in effect, be offering a tax break to those who can afford a computer and Internet access to the detriment of those who cannot. I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud the efforts that have been made to address this rapidly emerging form of trade, and I believe that the compromise version of S. 442 is an appropriate balance that will give the Commission time to make a recommendation while not greatly interfering with interstate commerce. However, I urge caution by my colleagues, when we revisit this issue in three years, that in our zeal to encourage the growth of the Internet and all the promise it offers we should not compromise the needs of our states, cities, towns, and local merchants. I pledge my efforts to achieve that goal.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said, ``Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.'' There has been some distortion and misinformation about my bill, the Drug Currency Forfeitures Act, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the facts. First of all, the purpose of my bill is to dismantle the fortunes of drug traffickers by helping law enforcement seize their drug profits. It is all about confiscating the money of drug dealers, drug traffickers, and drug kingpins. It is NOT about seizing the money of innocent, law-abiding citizens, as some have charged. Confiscating the money of innocent citizens violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and I would oppose such an attempt with every effort at my command. That is why this legislation includes constitutional safeguards which protect innocent Americans against illegal searches and seizures. Mr. President, let me tell you why I introduced my bill. There have been a recent series of court cases which have handed down some very disturbing verdicts. In each case, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the court ruled against seizing the assets of drug traffickers--one of our most effective weapons in the war against drugs. Let me give you just one example. A traveler was stopped in an airport carrying almost $14,000 in cash. A trained drug dog responded positively to the presence of drugs on the money. When asked for an explanation, the drug courier produced a fake ID and lied about the money's source. He also had a previous drug arrest on his record. Yet despite the evidence, the court gave the money back to the trafficker. Why? The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to show that the money came from some kind of criminal activity. But the court held there was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime was drug trafficking. United States v. $13,570.00 in U.S. Currency, 1997 WL 722947 (E.D. La. 1997). Every year drug sales in this country generate $60 billion in drug profits. Every day drug couriers move huge quantities of this multi- billion-dollar pot out of the U.S. in loads big enough to fill suitcases, trucks, and even airplanes. This movement of drug kingpins' cash crop is the most vulnerable part of their drug operation. Yet current law allows the drug trafficker and his couriers to say nothing at all when their money is seized. That's right, Mr. President. Under the law, the drug trafficker is obliged to give no explanation at all as to where his money came from. If the government can only show that the money was involved in a crime--but can't show that it was a drug crime--the drug dealer gets his money back. My legislation proposes a presumption that the money is drug proceeds if certain clearly defined circumstances are present--circumstances which typically are found in drug trafficking cases: the presence of drugs or drug residue; a positive alert by a properly trained dog; packaging of the money in a suspicious and highly unusual manner; false statements made to the police; previous drug trafficking convictions. Let me take just a moment, Mr. President, to answer those critics who discount the positive alert by a properly trained dog. These critics say that so much of our currency is tainted with drug residue that a positive dog alert is meaningless. Yet these critics fail to take into account the scientific evidence that shows that the drug dogs are NOT alerting to the presence of cocaine--which may or may not contaminate a large fraction of all U.S. currency. Instead, the scientific evidence shows that the dogs are alerting to methyl benzoate, a highly volatile chemical by-product of the cocaine manufacturing process that remains on the currency only for a short period of time. The bottom line is that the dogs are alerting only to money that has recently, or just before packaging, been in close proximity to a significant amount of cocaine. This research explains why these dogs do not routinely alert to currency. To repeat: These clearly defined circumstances in my bill are safeguards to protect the innocent. More important, my bill establishes only a presumption that the money is drug money. Individuals have every opportunity to rebut the government's claim and get their money back. Criminals, however, will no longer be able to play dumb and recover their drug money without having to provide an explanation of where that money came from. To those critics who maintain that my bill violates the rights of innocent citizens, let me say loud and clear: My bill takes effect only AFTER a determination has been made that the money in question is from an illegal source. This is how the process works. A police officer or federal agent assigned to an airport task force seizes the money of a traveler based on ``probable cause.'' The traveler, for example, has exhibited suspicious, counter-surveillance behavior, such as signaling to seemingly unrelated travelers who, in fact, are traveling with him. He has concealed a large quantity of money in his carry-on bag along with odor-disguising items like fabric softener sheets to throw off the drug dog. He produces a fake ID and offers a false explanation for the money. Someone whose name he doesn't remember packed the bag, and he had no idea there was any money in it. Let me repeat: There must be probable cause for the government to seize the money. Once the money is seized, notice of the seizure must be published in the newspaper on three successive weeks and direct notice must be given, in writing, to the person from whom the money was seized as well as to any other person known to have a potential legal interest. The notice explains the procedure for filing a claim to the money. In 85 percent of all federal cases, no one files a claim. To my critics, let me repeat: In 85 percent of the cases, the individual never contests the seizure. If an individual does file a claim, the agency which has seized the money must refer the case to the United States Attorney, who then makes an independent determination of the merits of the case. If the U.S. Attorney does not believe the government can establish that the money was drug proceeds, the case is rejected and the money is returned. On the other hand, if the U.S. Attorney believes the case has merit, he or she must file a civil forfeiture complaint in federal district court. The claimant is granted a certain number of days to renew his claim and file an answer to the government's complaint. The case is then litigated in the district court. In each and every case, the burden of proof is on the government. In each and every case, the government has the burden of establishing--to the satisfaction of the district court--that there is probable cause to believe that the money is drug money and therefore subject to forfeiture. Only if the government successfully overcomes this hurdle is the case scheduled for a jury trial where the claimant is required to offer his explanation for the legitimate source of the money. If the jury accepts this explanation, and the government is unable to rebut it with admissible evidence, the claimant will prevail and will recover the money. Otherwise, the court will enter judgment for the government and order the forfeiture of the money. Mr. President, the federal forfeiture laws are carefully written to provide due process to the innocent and the guilty alike. My bill conforms to these high standards while closing a legal loophole that benefits only the guilty. In the court cases which my bill addresses, the cases are dismissed before the claimant ever has to go before a jury to explain the source of the money. My bill addresses this problem by creating a presumption that if certain factors are present, the money is drug proceeds, and thereby allows the case to move forward to the next stage. To those who have expressed concern with the concept of rebuttable presumption, let me emphasize this fact: The presumption does not lead inevitably to the forfeiture of the money. Its role is only to force the claimant to come forward with an explanation for a legitimate source of the money. Therefore, my bill in no way infringes upon a property owner's rights under law. To those who have expressed concern over the possible impact of my bill, let me cite these facts. In fiscal year 1995--a time period prior to most of the court decisions which have limited the use of drug asset seizures--the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service made 35,000 seizures of forfeitable property. Of the 35,000 cases, more than 85 percent were uncontested. Of the 5,250 contested cases, the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute 3,057. Of the 2,193 complaints filed, the government lost in only 48 cases. These statistics are similar for the prior three years. There is therefore little evidence of actual abuses of drug asset forfeitures in the past, and there is even less likelihood of such abuses under the enhanced safeguards in my proposal. In closing, let me state once again: The Drug Currency Forfeitures Act goes after drug money only. Drug trafficking is a business, and drug traffickers are in this business for one reason--money. Their multi-billion-dollar war chests allow drug lords to have some of the world's most sophisticated airplanes, boats, and communications equipment. Because of their war chests, drug cartels possess weapons in quantities that rival the capabilities of some legitimate governments. If we want to make our streets safer, if we hope to make our children's lives drug-free, it is not enough just to apprehend the drug trafficker. Throw the drug kingpin in jail, and he continues his drug operations from behind prison walls. As evidence, just look at the leaders of the most powerful international organized crime group in history--Colombia's notorious Cali cartel. Even now, the Rodriguez- Orejuela brothers are able to run their drug trafficking business from prison through the use of private quarters and telephones. Critics of my proposal talk about the need to protect innocent victims. If we want to talk about innocent victims, look at the children who are being sold drugs at increasingly younger ages. Mr. President, I'm proud to be the sponsor of the Drug Currency Forfeitures Act. It hits the drug cartels where it hurts the most--their wallets. The ability of law enforcement to confiscate drug money hinges on the government's ability to prove that the money is drug proceeds, and not the proceeds of some other form of unlawful activity. My bill is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. The Drug Currency Forfeitures Act closes a legal loophole that benefits only the guilty. At the same time, it upholds the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects the innocent against unlawful searches and seizures. I worked very closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this legislation. It is a positive-- and needed--step forward, and at the appropriate time I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Any funds to be appropriated by Congress for the project must be allocated in a manner that ensures that project impacts are fully and adequately mitigated and are otherwise consistent with the mitigation plan developed by the Secretary and the stakeholder evaluation group. Is that correct?

Mr. CLELAND. Would the Chairman yield for two additional questions on this project?

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to clarify these understandings.

Mr. CLELAND. It is my understanding that the authorization language provides that neither the Secretary nor the Georgia Ports Authority will proceed with the design or construction of the project until the respective department heads concur on an appropriate implementation plan and mitigation plan. Is that correct?

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an invaluable member of my staff, Mike Williams, who has served as my Military Legislative Assistant since I arrived in the Senate in January 1997. Mike joined my staff after serving a great American and one of Georgia's most honored and beloved Senators, Senator Sam Nunn, where he began as an intern while attending Georgia Tech and after graduation quickly became involved in legislative matters, including military issues. After more than five years of public service, Mike will be leaving my staff after the 105th Congress adjourns to pursue other career opportunities. He will be sorely missed and not easily replaced. Mike's excellent assistance and invaluable experience made my transition from being Georgia's Secretary of State to a United States Senator and a member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee smooth and successful. He serves as a positive example to us all--a good person who is committed to his family and to continually improving himself. While working full-time for Senator Nunn and then myself, Mike has attended law school in the evening while still finding quality time to devote to his lovely wife Allyson and their beautiful daughter Catherine. Now in his final year of law school at Georgetown, Mike has decided to leave Capitol Hill to pursue a career in the law profession. I wish him well in all of his future endeavors and I know that he will have a lifetime of many more accomplishments and shining moments. Although Mike's invaluable contribution to my staff will be greatly missed, his daily presence in our lives will be missed even more. Mike, thank you for your years of service to me and the people of the great State of Georgia--I am very proud of all you do. You truly are a great American!

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the Republic of China's 87th Anniversary National Day on October 10, 1998. Taiwan has prospered beyond most people's wildest dreams despite its limited resources and vast population. The people of the United States have a special bond with the people of Taiwan, who have unfalteringly demonstrated to the world their commitment to democracy and democratic ideals. Taiwan is a vibrant, thriving country for the present and a model for the future--a model characterized by strong economic growth and respect for basic human rights and democratic freedoms. Taiwan has been and will continue to be an important partner of the United States, economically, culturally, strategically, and politically. May God bless our friends in Taiwan, including President Lee Teng-hui, Vice President Lien Chan and Taipei's Foreign Minister, Dr. Jason Hu, who have done an excellent job in leading Taiwan down the road of democracy and prosperity. Mr. President, I ask that you join me and our colleagues in congratulating the Republic of China's freedom on its 87th Anniversary National Day. I look forward to celebrating this historic event annually for many, many years to come.