Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize Barry Wolk, Director of Printing and Document Services, as he concludes over 23 years of service to the United States Senate. I know I speak for all of my colleagues, their staffs and others in the Senate community in acknowledging his excellence service. The Senate is well served by staff such as Mr. Wolk--people who are dedicated to the Senate and serve without partisanship year after year in carrying out critical administrative functions without which any institution could not carry out its mission. Mr. Wolk has spent his Senate career serving in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. He has carried out the Secretary's statutory responsibilities to ensure that Senate committee hearings are printed and has supplied Senators' offices and committees with stationary and other necessary items.He also assisted the Secretary in reducing the cost of these services through automation. The Senate is fortunate to have so many long-term and dedicated employees like Barry Wolk. As Barry leaves the Senate and enters a new phase of his life, I join my colleagues in wishing him and his family well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we celebrate the life of a very special American, Congressman Morris K. Udall. Today, and every day, I think of him for all the wit and wisdom he shared with the world, and for the remarkable commitment he made to public service and the causes he believed in. Mo inspired us with his integrity, compassion, dedication and humor. His loss is deeply felt by all who knew him. I first got to know Mo Udall when I came to the House of Representatives in 1978. He was a leader on issues that are still critical to the national debate, including protecting the environment, promoting honesty and fairness in the financing of campaigns, and making quality health care more accessible. I had the pleasure of working closely with him and sharing his passion on these priorities. When I was a struggling young Congressman, Mo went the extra mile to lend me his support and his assistance. He was always willing to offer a joke or a piece of advice, and he even traveled to the middle of South Dakota on behalf of this very junior Member of Congress. I am certainly not the only one who has benefited from the generosity of Morris Udall. In particular, those who shared his struggle with Parkinson's disease owe him a great debt of gratitude for his work on raising the awareness and funding for research on this debilitating illness. Although complications related to Parkinson's ultimately took his life, it is my hope that a speedy discovery of better treatments and, eventually, a cure for Parkinson's will be Mo's legacy to those at risk of developing this deadly disease. I join my colleagues both to celebrate the life of this remarkable man as well as to express my deepest sympathy to Mo Udall's family, especially his wife, Norma, and his children, Mark, Randolph, Judith, Anne, Bradley and Katherine. They have had the pleasure of knowing him best, and they will certainly feel his loss the most. There will never be another man with Mo Udall's unique combination of wit and passion. We are all better for having worked with and learned from this wonderful leader. As we honor him today, as we celebrate his life with our words, may we also be challenged to follow in his footsteps as a dedicated servant of the people and honor him with our actions. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate recently bid farewell to a longtime employee, William J. Lackey, who retired from the position of Journal Clerk. Bill was a familiar presence on the Senate dais, faithfully and accurately recording the daily proceedings of the Senate. In fact, the Constitution requires that ``each house of Congress shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time . . . publish the same.'' The Journal is the highest authority on actions taken by the Senate and can only be changed by a majority vote or by unanimous consent. Bill was responsible for recording the minutes of the Senate's legislative proceedings for publication as the annual Senate Journal. He always undertook this responsibility with great professional diligence and attention to detail. In total, Bill gave 35 years of service to the Senate, more than 20 of those in the Office of the Journal Clerk. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Bill for his faithful and dedicated service, and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the Majority Leader. When Congress debated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, considerable attention was paid to the section of the bill that delineated the membership of the Advisory Commission. The legislation is very clear in specifying a balanced makeup of this panel. While some adjustments have already been made in an effort to achieve that goal, further discussion of the make up of the Commission and the requirements of the statute is clearly required. As the Majority Leader knows, state and local governments have a lot at stake with respect to the deliberations of this Commission, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act anticipates their full participation on the panel. If we hope to reach consensus on a uniform taxation system that allows electronic commerce to flourish without eroding state and local tax bases, a balanced, representative Commission is in all parties' self-interest.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the distinguished Majority Leader's enthusiasm for the potential of electronic commerce and his assessment of the role of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in the encouragement of that potential. I also appreciate the concerns he referenced about the need for balance on the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce. The advisory panel can provide policymakers with valuable perspective on many of the issues that must be resolved if the potential of electronic commerce is to be fully realized.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Dr. Carter G. Woodson was the son of former slaves. He believed passionately that the solution to injustice was education. If Americans from different backgrounds could learn to see our similarities and appreciate our differences, he believed, we could end the fear that is at the heart of racial discrimination. So, in February 1926, Dr. Woodson proposed the first Negro History Week as a way to preserve African American history and promote greater understanding among all Americans. Over the years, as the civil rights movement progressed, Negro History Week evolved into what we now know as Black History Month. This month, as our nation once again pauses to reflect on the achievements and experiences of African Americans, we celebrate the birthdays of several renowned leaders, including Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, and Barbara Jordan. We also celebrate the founding 90 years ago of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, one of this century's most powerful engines for social and economic justice. It is right and fitting that we acknowledge such famous people and important milestones. But it is also important to recall the contributions of other African Americans who were less well known, but who contributed much to their communities. Today I want to pay tribute to two such men from my home state of South Dakota: Oscar Micheaux and Ross Owens. Oscar Micheaux was a gifted, early filmmaker who settled in Gregory, South Dakota, in the early 1900s. His company, the Micheaux Film Corporation, was responsible for producing films that ran counter to Hollywood's negative portrayal of African Americans at that time. Ross Owens was a 1925 graduate of my alma mater, South Dakota State University. Not only was he inducted into SDSU's Athletic Hall of Fame, but his masters thesis, ``Leisure Time Activities of the American Negro Prior to the Civil War'', became a classic in African American history and physical education. One can only wonder what else Mr. Micheaux and Mr. Owens might have achieved had they been born later, after the civil rights movement toppled many of the barriers to equality that existed during their lifetimes. Today, thanks to the vision of leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall and John Lewis, as well as countless other Americans whose names are less well known but whose courage was no less real, many of those barriers are gone. Our nation no longer tolerates legal discrimination. We no longer permit injustices like poll taxes, ``separate but equal'' schools, and segregated public facilities. We have moved closer to that ideal on which our nation was founded: that all men--and women--are created equal. And we are all better for it. Today, as our country thrives, millions of African Americans are sharing the benefits of the best economy in decades. But not all African Americans have been given the opportunity to share in America's economic progress. Not all of the barriers have been torn down. There is still work to be done. As we prepare to enter the new century, we must remain committed to equal educational opportunity, and economic and social justice--for all Americans. This month, as we celebrate Black History Month, let us recall the words of the poet Langston Hughes, who wrote of a land ``where opportunity is real, life is free, and equality is in the air we breathe.'' And let us rededicate ourselves to finishing the task of establishing that land here, in the United States.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I believe we must significantly boost compensation for the men and women of our armed forces who serve this nation so tirelessly and effectively. The end of the Cold War has meant that the numbers and types of overseas missions we ask these people to perform has grown. The rising number of military operations abroad coupled with an extremely vibrant U.S. economy has meant the military services are having a harder time attracting and keeping highly skilled personnel. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs recognized this troubling development last year in testimony before the Congress and began making the case for addressing the military's recruitment and retention problems. The examples they cited were troubling. The Air Force is experiencing serious shortfalls in retaining its pilots. The Navy is having difficulty manning its ships. The Army finds itself coming up short in filling out its units. Only the Marine Corps appears to be faring well at the moment. The President listened to our senior military officials, and he responded. The President proposed a $23 billion personnel initiative in his FY2000 budget to improve the military's pay and retirement benefits. The President's budget would provide the men and women of our armed services with the largest pay raise since 1982. In addition, it would reform military pay tables to reward performance, increase specialty pay and bonuses to address retention issues, and restore retirement benefits. Just as important as this list of benefits is the fact that the President made these proposals while remaining faithful to his pledge to Save Social Security First. The President was able to accommodate these proposed increases without spending any of the surplus in FY2000. In short, the President's proposal is fully paid for. Like numerous members of Congress from both political parties, I have gone on record in the last several months in support of the Defense Department's argument that military pay and retirement benefits need to be enhanced if we are to continue to field a well-trained, highly capable military. That is why, along with Senator Levin, Senator Cleland, and many other Democratic Senators, I introduced the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999--a bill to increase pay and retirement benefits for members of the Armed Services. I am pleased that many provisions of this legislation were included in S. 4. Although the initial Democratic and Republican proposals were slightly different, I think we can all agree that people are the military's most important asset. To see why, you need look no further than my home state of South Dakota and the more than 3,000 active-duty personnel stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base. Like their counterparts at military installations around the county and throughout the world, the men and women at Ellsworth Air Force Base serve their country with pride and distinction every day. Most recently, crews flying and maintaining B-1B bombers from Ellsworth participated in Operation Desert Fox. This was the first time that B-1Bs were used in combat, and the fact that B-1B crews from Ellsworth were so successful in hitting their targets is a credit to their enormous commitment and dedication. With dedicated people like those we see at Ellsworth and other military installations around the world, it is easy to see why all of us--President Clinton, Defense Secretary Cohen, Joint Chiefs Chairman Shelton, Democrats, and Republicans--agree that something must be done. Therefore, a key issue before the Senate today is how best to accomplish this end, how best to ensure that some of this nation's best and brightest continue to pursue a career in the military? However, it is not the only issue. Those who are concerned about having a well balanced, fiscally responsible defense plan must also ask another question. What is the best way to provide military personnel with the pay and retirement benefits they so richly deserve while remaining true to our other defense and domestic priorities and staying within the tight fiscal constraints we find ourselves operating under? Indeed, this may be the most important question we face today: how do we do right by our military personnel, our other defense and domestic priorities, and our obligation to be fiscally responsible? The bill before us today provides only a partial answer to this critical question, as it spends $12 billion beyond the President's proposal without providing offsets for the additional spending. As I said earlier, I wholeheartedly support providing additional benefits to our troops, and I will vote for this bill today. What troubles me about S. 4, however, is that its authors have chosen to stay strangely silent on how they will pay for the additional $12 billion in benefits. Mr. President, I believe that when it comes to something as important as the pay and retirement benefits of our military, Congress should leave no questions unanswered. Fortunately, the action we take today in the Senate on S. 4 is the first step in a multi-step process. The House must develop its version of this bill, and differences between the House and Senate versions must be resolved in a conference. I urge the House and Senate members who participate in this process to fill in the blanks contained in S. 4. Our troops deserve additional pay and benefits. We owe it to both the troops and the American people to show how we will pay for them. I will be working hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide this answer and produce a military pay and retirement bill of which we can all be proud. Amendment No. 26

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, in just a few moments, each of us will be called upon to do something that no one has done in American history. We will be voting on two articles of impeachment against an elected President of the United States. Having listened carefully to nearly 50 of our colleagues who share my point of view, it is both difficult and unnecessary to attempt to reiterate the powerful logic and the extraordinary eloquence of many of their presentations. I share the view expressed by so many that this body must be guided by two fundamental principles. I recognize that we are not all guided by these principles, but I and others have been guided, first, by this question: Has the prosecution provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and, second, if so, do the President's offenses rise to the level of gravity laid out by our founders in the Constitution? After listening to both sides of these arguments now for the past 5 weeks, I believe--I believe strongly--that the record shows that on both principles the answer is no--no, the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and, no, even if it had been it would not reach the impeachable level. I also share the view expressed by many of my colleagues on the process which brought us here: an investigation by an independent counsel which exceeded the bounds of propriety; a decision by the Supreme Court subjecting sitting Presidents to civil suits--it is my prediction that every future President will be faced with legal trauma as a result--a deeply flawed proceeding in the House Judiciary Committee, which in an unprecedented fashion effectively relinquished its obligation to independently weigh the case for impeachment; the disappointing decision to deny Members of the Senate and the House the opportunity to vote on a censure resolution, even though I believe it would be supported by a majority in both Houses; and finally, the bitterly partisan nature of all the actions taken by the House of Representatives in handling this case. But as deeply disappointed as I am with the process, it pales in comparison to the disappointment I feel toward this President. Maybe it is because I had such high expectations. Maybe it is because he holds so many dreams and aspirations that I hold about our country. Maybe it is because he is my friend. I have never been, nor ever expect to be, so bitterly disappointed again. Abraham Lincoln may have been right when he said, ``I would rather have a full term in the Senate, a place in which I would feel more consciously able to discharge the duties required, and where there is more chance to make a reputation and less danger of losing it, than 4 years of the Presidency.'' Maybe it is because of my disappointment that I was all the more determined to help give the Senate its chance to make a reputation, as Lincoln put it, at this time in our Nation's history. The Senate has served our country well these past 2 months. And I now have no doubt that history will so record. There are clear reasons why the Senate has succeeded in this historic challenge. First is the manner in which the Chief Justice has presided over these hearings. We owe him a big, big debt of gratitude. He has presented his rulings with clarity and logic. He has tempered the long hours and temporary confusion with a fine wit. In an exemplary fashion, he has done his constitutional duty and has made it possible for us to do ours. The second reason is our majority leader. Perhaps more than anyone in the Chamber, I can attest to his steadfast commitment to a trial conducted with dignity and in the national interest. He has demonstrated that differences--honest differences--on difficult issues need not be dissent, and in that end the Senate can transcend those differences and conclude a constitutional process that the country will respect, and I do. Third is our extraordinary staff--the Chaplain, my staff in particular, Senator Lott's staff, the floor staff, the Parliamentarians, the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate. They have served us proudly. Their professionalism and the quality that they have demonstrated each and every hour ought to make us all proud. Finally, if we have been successful, it has been because of each of you--your diligence, your deportment, your thoughtful arguments on either side of these complex, vexing questions. This experience and each of you--each of you--have made me deeply proud to be a Member of the U.S. Senate. Growing up in South Dakota, I learned so much, as many of us have, from relatives and from the people in my hometown, and my parents especially. Something my father admonished me to do so many, many times in growing up is something I still remember so vividly today. He said, ``Never do anything that you wouldn't put your signature on.'' I thought of that twice during these proceedings--once when we signed the oath right here, and again last night when I signed the resolution for Scott Bates. I will hear Scott Bates' voice when I hear my name called this morning. My father passed away 2 years ago. He and Scott are watching now. And I believe they will say that we have a right to put our signature on this work, on what we have done in these past 5 weeks, for with our votes today we can now turn our attention to the challenges confronting our country tomorrow. And, as we do, I hope for one thing: That we will soon see a new day in politics and political life, one filled with the same comity and spirit that I feel in the room today, one where good governance is truly good politics, one which encourages renewed participation in our political system. It is a hope based upon a fundamental belief which is now 210 years old, a belief that here in this country with this Republic we have created something very, very special, a belief so ably articulated by Thomas Paine as he wrote ``Common Sense.'' The sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth. This is not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent. This is not the concern of the day, a year, or an age. Posterity is are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected even to the end of time by the proceedings now. So it is as we cast our votes today and begin a new tomorrow. Each of us understands that the decision we must make is the most demanding assigned to us, as Senators, by the Constitution. The Framers did not believe it a simple matter to remove a President. They did not intend that it occur easily. Only a certain class of offenses--treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors--could justify the President's removal. Only a supermajority--two-thirds of the Senate--could authorize it. The Framers made as plain as they could that each Senator must judge, on all the circumstances of the case, whether the facts support this extraordinary remedy. As I look at this case, I am compelled to consider it from beginning to end--from the circumstances under which the House fashioned and approved the articles, to the trial here in the Senate when the House pressed its arguments for conviction. And I find a case troubled from beginning to end--one marked by constitutional defects, inconsistencies in presentation, surprising concessions by the Managers against their own position, and even damage done to that position by their own witnesses. In short, the case I have seen is one that I do not believe can bear the weight of the profound constitutional consequences it is meant to carry. Its constitutional defects began in the House. Rather than initiating its own investigation, and making its own findings, the House rested on the referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Never before has the House effectively relinquished its obligation to independently weigh the case for impeachment. But this time it did, relinquishing that obligation to Mr. Starr. Mr. Starr's 454-page referral became the factual record in the House. The arguments he made in that referral served almost exclusively as the basis for the articles prepared and voted by the House. The House called no independent fact witness. The only witness was Mr. Starr. And it is telling that Mr. Starr's own ethics adviser, Professor Sam Dash, resigned his position with the Office of Independent Counsel to protest the improper role played by Mr. Starr in the impeachment process. The House proceedings set a dangerous constitutional precedent, and the decision to follow this course has reverberated throughout the trial here in the Senate. Because Mr. Starr carried the case in the House, the House did not develop or explain its own case until the time came to prepare for trial in the Senate. Those explanations, when they came, were replete with inconsistencies--not technical or minor inconsistencies, but rather inconsistencies that struck at the heart of their position. On the one hand, the Managers charged the President with serious crimes. Yet, they also argued that they should not be required to prove ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that the President committed those crimes--that they need not meet the standard that applies throughout our criminal justice system. On the one hand, the Managers acknowledged that the House rejected an article based on President Clinton's deposition in the Jones case. Yet, throughout their presentations, including their videotaped presentation on February 6, they repeatedly relied on the President's statements in that civil deposition. On the one hand, the Managers insisted that the record received from the House provided clear and irrefutable evidence of the President's guilt. Yet, one Manager declared that reasonable people could differ on the strength of the case, and another stated that he could not win a conviction in court based on that record. On the one hand, the Managers originally claimed a record so clear that the House was not required to call a single fact witness--other than Mr. Starr. Yet, in the Senate, they insisted that their case depended vitally on witnesses. In the end, the Senate authorized the deposition of witnesses, two of whom--Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan--were central to the core allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice. These were witnesses identified by the House--witnesses the Managers expected to help support their case. This is not, however, how it turned out. In the final blow to the case for removal brought by the Managers, those very witnesses provided the Senate with clear and compelling testimony--in the President's defense. It cannot have escaped many of us that the defense showed more and longer segments of this testimony than the Managers who sought these witnesses in the first place. What did Ms. Lewinsky say about the false affidavit she filed in the Jones case? That she never discussed the contents with the President. That she thought she might be able to file a truthful, but limited affidavit and still avoid testifying. That she had reasons completely independent from the President's for wanting to avoid testimony. That the President did not ask her to lie or promise her a job for her silence. What did Ms. Lewinsky say about the return of the gifts given to her by the President? That she raised with the President whether she should turn the gifts over to Ms. Currie. That she recalls that the President may have advised her to turn them all over to the Jones lawyers. That she told an FBI agent of this advice, but it somehow was omitted from the Independent Counsel's investigative report. That six days before her White House meeting with the President, she had already made an independent decision to withhold gifts from her own lawyer. What did Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan say about the job search for Ms. Lewinsky? That it was never connected to the preparation of her affidavit, much less conditioned on her making any false statements to a court. What did Mr. Jordan say about any pressure placed on the companies he contacted to hire Ms. Lewinsky? That he only recommended her. That two companies he contacted would not hire her. That the third company, which did hire her, did so on the strength of an interview in which she made a strong personal impression--much like the one she made to the Managers in their first meeting with her. These witnesses--the House's witnesses--made it impossible, I believe, for the Managers to sustain a case already weakened by a defective House process, serious inconsistencies in their arguments, and doubts about its merits that even some of the Managers themselves candidly expressed. Surely a case for removal of the President must be stronger. Surely a case for conviction must be strong enough to unite the Senate and the public behind the most momentous of constitutional decisions. Surely a case to remove the President from office must be strong enough to meet the high standards established with such care by the Constitution's framers. In requiring that the Senate remove only for ``high'' crimes and misdemeanors, the framers acted with care. As the House Judiciary Committee stated in its Watergate report 25 years ago, ``[I]mpeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government.'' Its purpose is to protect our constitutional form of government, not to punish a President. It is for this reason that the framers made clear that not all offenses by a Chief Executive are ``high'' crimes--and that even a President who may have violated the law, but not the Constitution, remains subject to criminal and civil legal process after he or she leaves office. Whatever legal consequences may follow from this President's actions, the case made by the House Managers does not satisfy the exacting standard for removal. For all of these reasons, I will vote to acquit on both articles. This is my constitutional judgment about whether the Senate should remove the President from office. My personal judgment of the President's actions is something altogether different, reflecting my values and those of South Dakotans and millions of Americans. Like them, I am extraordinarily disappointed, and angered, by the President's behavior. Since I have long considered the President a friend, my own sense of betrayal could not run more deeply. There is no question that the President's deplorable actions should be condemned by the Senate. I fervently hope that the Senate will do what the House would not-- permit the people's elected representatives to express themselves and reflect their constituents' views on the President's conduct, for the benefit of our generation and those still to come. So let us proceed now to a vote and resolve this constitutional task after these long and arduous months. Then the time will have come to return to the urgent work of the country. When we do, I believe that all of us--members of the majority and members of the minority, however we choose to cast our votes--will be able to agree on this: That in 1999, 100 Senators acted as the Constitution required, honoring their oath to do impartial justice and acting in the best interests of this country they so dearly love.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today's votes on the Articles of Impeachment mark the end of a long and difficult journey. The story of this impeachment process suggests a number of lessons on which I expect we will all reflect individually and collectively for some time. From the beginning of this process, I objected in the clearest terms to the President's legal hairsplitting and attempts to find a legal excuse, or any excuse, for his deplorable personal conduct. In my view, the President violated the public trust and brought dishonor to the office he holds. For that, he will have to answer to the people of this country, and to history. But it was every senator's duty to put personal views aside and render impartial justice, based on constitutional standards and the evidence before the Senate. In my view, the President's conduct did not, under our Constitution, warrant his removal from office. Others, acting on equally sincere motives, reached a different conclusion. It is regrettable that something about this process led to a situation, particularly in Washington, where sincere voices on both sides were too often drowned out by partisan voices--again, on both sides. But, if we listen to voices outside the nation's capital, the voices of citizens rather than of partisans, those voices tell us that something has gone terribly wrong in our public discourse. Those citizens see the impeachment process not as a solemn constitutional event, which it assuredly was, but rather as another sad episode in the sorry saga of a bitter, partisan and negative political process that runs on the fuel of scandal. In this sense, to many Americans, the Starr investigation, and the impeachment process it spawned, were all too familiar. To much of the American public, this whole process was a long- running, 50-million-dollar negative ad built on personal attacks, the likes of which Americans regret and reject. I know this belief is shared by thousands of South Dakotans and millions of Americans who hold widely varying views of what the outcome of the impeachment proceeding should have been--conviction or acquittal, removal or continued service by the President to the conclusion of his term. What are the elements, the component parts, of this political process that so many Americans judge to be merely an ugly spectacle increasingly unworthy of their participation? What is making Americans so cynical that they are voting in record-low numbers and tuning out the government meant to serve them? Surely they must be concerned about the increased use, and misuse, of the legal process in our political process. They are no longer certain they can distinguish the proper application of the law to address real wrongdoing properly before the courts from the hijacking of the law to bludgeon political opponents and extend the battlefield of political attack. In just ten years, we have seen the public careers of three House Speakers, representing both political parties, destroyed by scandal. As the process has escalated, Independent Counsels have pursued members of Presidents' cabinets--of both parties--and then, the President of the United States himself. We have watched what we all acknowledge as ``the politics of personal destruction'' threaten to devour our democratic ideals. We can, and we will, argue the merits of the Independent Counsel statute when it comes up for reauthorization this session. We can, and we will, continue to pursue those who are corrupt, who use their offices for personal gain, or who otherwise deserve punishment. But the law must be preserved as an instrument for the rendering of justice, not manipulated to serve as another readily accessible weapon to be used against political adversaries. And the law should not become a substitute for elections. Political choices in this country must remain in the hands of the people of this country, not conveyed to prosecutors and lawyers. It is not the law's fault that there has been a hardening of position and a commitment to win at any cost. To paraphrase our former colleague Dale Bumpers' now famous declaration in his presentation to the Senate, ``Sometimes we want to win too badly.'' It is time for elected officials to ask themselves, ``Does anyone in this country really feel as though they have been winners in this seemingly interminable process of investigation, media spectacle and impeachment controversy?" I hope we can keep Senator Bumpers' words in mind and honor each other with the same degree of commitment that we bring to our disagreements. I hope we can persuade without spinning; that we can argue without shouting; that we can dissent without dividing. We can be passionate in our beliefs without prosecuting those who believe differently. There were no winners in this impeachment process, but there were plenty of losers. There are good people who have accumulated thousands of dollars in legal bills as a result of the years of investigating the President. There are good people--on both sides of the aisle--whose private lives will be never be private again. There are people whose reputations have been battered and beaten. I hope we can keep those people in mind and call for--indeed, insist upon--a truce in the political wars. We need now to think about what we owe ourselves, each other and the public as we move--and I hope without further delay--to address the true agenda of the American people.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also wish to extend my best wishes to Mr. David G. Marcos on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Marcos has had a long career of distinguished service to the Senate, under both Republican and Democratic majorities. He worked hard to discharge whatever responsibilities were assigned him, whether as Executive Clerk, Assistant Executive Clerk, Keeper of Stationery, or in other responsible positions. For 39 years, David provided dedicated service to the Senate, and I know that I speak for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when I commend him for his long and dedicated service. Undoubtedly, Dave has seen many changes and improvements in the administrative operations of the Senate over his long career. He can be rightfully proud of the contributions he has made to the improvements in the Office of the Executive Clerk and the Senate Stationery Room. Again, I offer my best congratulations to Dave. May he enjoy many years of health and happiness in his retirement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thursday, January 21 marked the end of Thomas Pellikaan's Senate career. Over the past 35 years, Tom Pellikaan served the Senate with distinction in various capacities--first as Senate press liaison and then at the Office of the Daily Digest, where he spent the majority of his Capitol Hill career. He advanced from a staff assistant in the Daily Digest office to serve as Editor of the Daily Digest since 1989. Tom's attention to detail is well known around the halls of the Senate. His office has the responsibility of ensuring that the information contained in the Daily Digest section of the Congressional Record reflects the actions taken on any given day in the Senate. The Daily Digest is an important and useful tool for the Senate family. Tom and his staff are to be complimented for the excellent job they have done and will continue to do. While Tom has left the Senate, I am sure his interest in the Senate will continue. On behalf of my Democratic colleagues, we wish him well as he enjoys the ``country life'' on his farm in Culpeper, VA.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Francis Burk for his nearly three decades of service to the United States Senate and to wish him well as he begins the next chapter of his life. Frank Burk began his career with the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel in June 1970. For more than 25 years, Frank was the primary drafter in the Senate of legislation relating to banking, securities, housing, mass transportation, and small business. Senator Byrd, as President pro tempore of the Senate, appointed Frank as Legislative Counsel of the Senate on January 1, 1991. He continued to serve in that position until his retirement on December 31, 1998. Mr. President, Frank Burk is one of the dedicated public servants who serve the Senate for years and who become sources of knowledge and expertise for all Senators and staff. They are our institutional memory: those who allow us to proceed from Congress to Congress with a sense of history and continuity. Our jobs would be even more difficult without people like Frank. I know I speak for other Senators and for staff when I say we will miss Frank Burk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, sharing the expressions of gratitude that Senator Lott has just articulated for all of our staff. They have done a remarkable job. He mentioned all those who work for all of us. Let me mention a couple of people who work for those of us on this side: Bob Bower, Bill Corr, Pete Rouse, Marty Paone, and so many people who were particularly responsible for the fact that we were able to conduct our work so effectively throughout this very difficult challenge. So on behalf of the Democratic Caucus, we join with Senator Lott in expressing our deep sense of gratitude for the great, great job that they have done in these difficult weeks that we have now concluded. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the leader will yield for the purpose of clarification, I may have misunderstood what the majority leader described here. But our intent would be to allow statements to be inserted into the Congressional Record, not into the hearing record.

Mr. DASCHLE. So that people understand, this would actually allow you the opportunity to insert your statement into the Congressional Record, succeeding the votes on the two articles. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. At this juncture in the trial, I am compelled to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this resolution honoring one of the towering figures of our time. Peace-loving people throughout the world feel a deep sadness over the death of Jordan's King Hussein. By the sheer force of his personal and political courage, he changed the world for the better. None of us will ever forget how he rose from his sickbed at the Mayo Clinic last fall and came to the Wye River peace talks when those talks seemed in danger of collapse. Those who were there say he restored to those talks a sense that peace was not only possible, but worth making great sacrifices for, and taking extraordinary risks for. His was a clear voice for moderation, tolerance and accommodation as he urged the two sides to work for peace. His admonition that there had been ``enough destruction, enough death, enough waste'' helped bridge the gap and forge an agreement. King Hussein himself took a risk for peace in 1994, when he forged the historic peace agreement between Jordan and Israel. Another image we will perhaps always remember is the picture of King Hussein kneeling not long ago at the feet of an Israeli father whose child had been killed by Jordanian border guards, and apologizing to the man for his loss. He was a noble man and, at the same time, a humble man. He was also a man of great vision and skill. When he became the King, the Hashemite kingdom enjoyed little of what it has now. In just a generation and a half, he created in Jordan a system of schools and roads and all the other infrastructure of a modern state. King Hussein was a true friend of the United States. And, like all friends, we did not always see eye-to-eye on every matter. In the end, however, it is not our differences with him that we remember. It is how he inspired people to come together despite their differences. A man small in physical stature, he walked among us like a giant. The world is diminished by his passing. We will miss him greatly. Today, as King Hussein is buried, we offer our prayers and sympathy to his family--especially Queen Noor and each of his children--and to all the people of his beloved Jordan. We also pledge to work closely with King Abdullah and the Jordanian people to protect King Hussein's legacy. We must continue our efforts to promote peace in the Middle East, including implementing the Wye River Peace Accord, which would not have been possible without his courage. Finally, I hope we will work expeditiously to approve the aid to Jordan that was agreed to at Wye as a tangible demonstration of our support for King Abdullah and our ongoing commitment to peace in the Middle East. Our friend is gone, but his spirit lives on in the fragile Middle East peace. Let us nurture it and help it grow, in his name and in his memory.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. In accordance with rule V, on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend the following: Rule VII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``upon the calendar''; and Rule VIII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``during the first two hours of a new legislative day.'' In order to permit a motion to proceed to a censure resolution, to be introduced on the day of the motion to proceed, notwithstanding the fact that it is not on the calendar of business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader. I thank our Chaplain for his gracious prayer. The presence of Scott Bates in that chair and in our lives is something most of us have counted on each and every day. As the majority leader so eloquently said, he, Scott, served the Senate, our country, and each of us so admirably for the last 30 years. Who can forget that resonant voice? Who can forget the call of the roll? Who can forget the authority with which he articulated each of our names? The answer is--no one. When Scott began his service, Senator Mansfield was the majority leader and Senator Hugh Scott the minority leader. Ever since that time, Scott was an integral part of the history created in this Chamber and certainly an integral part of our Senate family. He grew up with small town values, active in his church and Boy Scouts. He loved politics and school and served as a page in both the House and the Senate in the Arkansas Legislature. Scott's love of politics came naturally for him. His father actually served as a member of the Arkansas State Legislature. In 1970 he came here as a summer intern for Senator John McClellan, in the bill clerk's office, and began his work for us in 1973. Today, we send our thoughts and our prayers to his wife, Ricki, who remains in the hospital, and to their three children, Lisa, Lori, and Paul, and his family in Arkansas, who are now dealing with this tragic loss.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. The motion would allow for closing arguments, final deliberations, and then the motions on the two articles.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 9 years ago Congress took the landmark step of extending benefits through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA) to thousands of American victims of the Cold War who were unknowingly and wrongly exposed to life-threatening levels of radiation and other harmful materials as part of our nation's nuclear weapons program. This law was long overdue, and was an important step by Congress to acknowledge the federal government's responsibility for its failure to warn or take adequate steps to protect victims of radioactive fallout from weapons testing and underground uranium miners who breathed harmful levels of radon as they worked to supply our nuclear weapons program. The law makes individuals who have developed cancer or other health problems as a result of their exposure to radiation eligible for up to $100,000 in compensation from the government. In the 9 years since the passage of that bill, we have had time to reflect upon its strengths and its shortcomings. During that time, it has become overwhelmingly clear that we have not fully met our obligation to victims of our nuclear program. Most seriously, we have arbitrarily and unfairly limited compensation for underground miners to those in only 5 states, despite the fact that underground miners in other states such as South Dakota faced exactly the same risk to their health. This fact alone requires us to amend RECA so that we can right this wrong. However, we have also excluded other groups of workers, and their surviving families, from compensation for serious health problems and, in some cases, deaths, that have resulted from their work to help defend our nation. Many of those who worked in uranium mills, for example, have developed serious respiratory problems as a result of exposure to uranium dusts and silica. Concerns have been raised about above-ground miners and uranium transportation workers as well. It is the obligation of the 106th Congress to continue the work of the 101st. Not only is it incumbent upon us to extend the law to compensate underground miners unfairly left out of the original legislation, we need to extend the law to cover new groups of workers who face similar risks to their health. It is for that reason that I am joining with Senator Bingaman today to sponsor the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation will expand RECA to cover underground miners in all states, as well as surface miners, transportation workers and uranium mill workers who have had health problems as a result of their work with uranium. I hope my colleagues will join us to pass this legislation quickly. I also feel an obligation to correct the historical record. During my review of the scientific literature on the uranium industry and of testimony before Congress, I was concerned to see that South Dakota's former uranium industry has gone virtually unnoticed by the rest of the nation despite the fact that South Dakotans who worked in the industry appear to be suffering exactly the same long-term health consequences as residents of other states. For that reason, I would like to take a moment to outline the history of uranium mining and processing in my state. Uranium was first discovered in South Dakota in the summer of 1951, along the fringe of the Black Hills where grasslands uplift into pine forest. As you know, 1951 was a difficult time in American history. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was deepening, and the United States was rapidly expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. To supply this new weapons program, the United States adopted a program of government price supports to create a domestic uranium industry under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Almost immediately, South Dakota became one of the AEC's suppliers. After uranium was discovered in South Dakota, the AEC established an office in Hot Springs to conduct airborne radiometric surveys, and small-scale prospecting began. South Dakota's first uranium ore was shipped by rail to Colorado for processing, until an ore-buying station was established by the AEC in the town of Edgemont in December of 1952. A uranium mill was constructed in Edgemont shortly afterwards. Uranium mining and milling continued for nearly two decades in my state. According to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, there were over 100 uranium mines in the vicinity of Edgemont, of which at least 22 were underground. In their 20 years of operation between 1953 and 1973, these mines produced nearly 1 million short tons of ore and just over 3 million pounds of processed uranium. Ore from South Dakota's mines was processed at the mill in Edgemont. According to a document provided to me by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which later acquired the mill and the responsibility for its cleanup, ``From 1956 through 1972 (when the uranium circuit was shut down and the mill stopped producing uranium concentrates), approximately 2,500,000 tons of mill tailings were produced onsite. Of this total, approximately 2,050,000 tons--82 percent--were produced under contract with the AEC for defense purposes. In fact, all of the uranium concentrates produced through December 31, 1966, and a portion of those produced until 1968 were sold to the AEC. The remaining 450,000 tons of mill tailings--18 percent--were produced under contracts for commercial sales.'' Mr. President, much of this information was difficult to come by, and to ensure that all those who need it in the future have full access to it. As these records make clear, for over 20 years South Dakota played a significant role in supplying uranium for our nation's nuclear weapons program. Yet rarely will you find South Dakota mentioned in any of the debate over the long-term consequences of that program. I am determined to change that fact, and to ensure that all South Dakotans, and other individuals across the country, who are suffering from poor health, or who are surviving relatives of uranium workers who have died as a result of their work, are fairly compensated by the federal government for their losses. As my colleagues know, in RECA Congress officially recognized that ``the lives and health of uranium miners and of individuals who were exposed to radiation were subjected to increased risk of injury and disease to serve the national security interests of the United States.'' However, the law only makes this determination for fallout victims and for underground uranium miners in 5 states. I believe it must be broadened to include underground uranium miners in all states. This is a matter of simple fairness. I can find no reasonable explanation for the failure of the law to include South Dakota and other states that had underground uranium mines whose workers would have been exposed to unsafe levels of radon. In addition, the law should be broadened to include uranium mill workers, surface miners and transportation workers to ensure that all those who may be suffering from health problems as a result of exposure to uranium dust or other harmful materials are compensated fairly. While there are strong grounds on which to expand the act to include all of these groups of workers, it is helpful to examine closely the evidence supporting the inclusion of one of these groups--mill workers--to better understand our reasons for seeking this change. The grounds for expanding the act to include mill workers are largely the same as those which led Congress to pass RECA 9 years ago. The United States government, which created the domestic uranium industry through price supports in order to supply its nuclear weapons program, failed to adequately warn mill workers of potential risks to their health, to take reasonable measures to create a safe working environment, or to act on initial warnings and conduct long-term studies of mill workers to determine whether their health was being affected by their work. The federal government recognized the potential risks of uranium production from the onset of our nuclear program, and in 1949 the Public Health Service (PHS) initiated a study of both underground miners and millers to determine whether they were suffering from any adverse health effects. Troublingly, a decision was also made by the federal government not to inform workers that their health could be at risk. As Senior District Judge Copple noted in his decision in Begay v. United States, ``In order to proceed with the epidemiological study, it was necessary to obtain the consent and voluntary cooperation of all mine operators. To do this, it was decided by PHS under the Surgeon General that the individual miners would not be told of possible potential hazards from radiation in the mines for fear that many miners would quit and others would be difficult to secure because of fear of cancer. This would seriously interrupt badly needed production of uranium.'' While the court's decision does not make clear whether that same decision applied to uranium millers, subsequent research has shown that over 80 percent of former mill workers felt they were not informed about the hazards of radiation during their employment. The early results of this study, as described in a May 1952 report entitled, ``An Interim Report of a Health Study of the Uranium Mines and Mills,'' are disturbing. It notes that, ``In 1950, 13.8 percent of the white miners and 26.5 percent of the white millers showed more than the usual pulmonary fibrosis, as compared to 7.5 percent in a control group. In the same year, 20 percent of the Indian millers and 13.2 percent of the Indian miners showed more than the usual pulmonary fibrosis, as against none in the controls. Such a finding would indicate a tendency on the part of these individuals to develop silicosis from their exposure.'' Given these and other findings, the study notes the ``need for repeating the medical studies at frequent intervals.'' It is inexplicable to me that these critical follow-up studies which were so strongly recommended by the Public Health Service took place only for underground uranium miners. No long-term, follow-up studies of uranium millers were conducted. This decision was made despite the fact that it was well established that uranium millers were being exposed to uranium dusts and silica, which increase the risk of non-malignant lung disease. One of the reasons the health problems of mill workers appear to have been so neglected is that most officials assumed that risks could be controlled by adopting standards to prevent workers from breathing or swallowing dust produced by yellowcake or uranium ore. As the 1952 PHS study states, ``In general, it may be said that there are no health hazards in the mills which cannot be controlled by accepted industrial hygiene methods.'' Noting poor dust control in the mills, the PHS study concluded, ``Until adequate dust control has been established at this operation, the workers should be required to wear approved dust respirators. Daily baths and frequent changes of clothing by the workers in this area are also indicated.'' These recommendations appear to have been largely ignored. Recent studies of former uranium mill workers by Gary Madsen, Susan Dawson and Bryan Spykerman of the University of Utah paint a devastating picture of workplace conditions in uranium mills prior to the enforcement of stringent safety standards in the 1970's. Eighty percent of former mill workers interviewed by the researchers for one study said they were never informed about possible effects of radiation. Of workers who reported working in dusty conditions, 35 percent did not wear respirators, and 20 percent wore them infrequently or said they were not always available. Sixty-eight percent reported moderate to heavy amounts of dust on their clothing at work, and virtually all workers reported bringing their dust-covered clothes home to be washed. One respondent noted, ``We washed the clothes once a week. It was messy. We were expecting our first child. I had to shake my clothes outside. There was yellow sand left at the bottom of the washer. All of the clothes were washed together. Nobody told us the uranium was dangerous--a problem. My wife would get yellowcake on her. I would remove my coveralls in the kitchen. Put them in with the rest of the [family's] laundry.'' Others reported regularly seeing workers outside the mills with yellowcake under their fingernails or in their ears. Mr. President, the dangerous conditions revealed by these studies show an inexcusable failure on the part of the federal government to ensure safe working conditions in an industry it created and controlled. And despite failing to enforce these standards or to even inform workers of the risk to their health, the government nonetheless decided to end long-term studies monitoring the health of mill workers. As a result, only a few studies have been conducted of the health impacts that uranium milling has had on workers. Dr. Larry Fine, Director of the Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, summarized the results of these studies in recent testimony before Congress: ``Health concerns for uranium millers center on their exposures to uranium dusts and silica. Exposure to silica and relatively insoluble uranium compounds may increase the millers' risk of non-malignant respiratory disease, while exposure to relatively soluble forms of uranium may increase their risk of kidney disease. The two mortality studies of uranium millers have not had adequate population size or adequate time since exposure to detect even a moderate risk of lung cancer if present; neither study reported an elevated risk of lung cancer. One of the two completed mortality studies of millers found an increased risk for cancer of the lymphatic and hematopoietic organs (excluding leukemia), and the other found an increased risk for non- malignant respiratory disease and accidents. A non-significant excess in deaths from chronic kidney disease was also observed in the second study. There have been two medical studies of uranium millers, one of which found evidence for pulmonary fibrosis (possibly due to previous mining) and the other of which found evidence for kidney damage.'' I am deeply concerned by our failure to study uranium mill workers more thoroughly and by the indications given by the evidence we do have that these workers are suffering long-term health consequences as a result of their work on behalf of our country. Unfortunately, it may now be too late to gather more conclusive evidence. These workers are growing older and some are now dying. Their numbers have grown so small that it may no longer be possible to conduct the type of conclusive study that should have been done years ago. We owe these mill workers the benefit of the doubt and should make them or their surviving families eligible for the same compensation that underground miners receive. Indeed, I have heard from many South Dakotans who have waited long enough for compensation. They tell me of former miners and mill workers who have died of cancer or who suffer from respiratory disease they believe is directly related to their exposure to harmful materials in their workplace. One of the most tragic stories I have heard was written to me in a letter from Sharon Kane, a widow in Sturgis, South Dakota. After working for 11 years in Edgemont's uranium mill, her husband, Joe, developed severe respiratory problems and was forced to leave his work at the mill. Unfortunately, his health problems continued. Joe died of bone cancer in 1987. It is difficult for me to understand why or how our country let this happen. However, it is now up to us to ensure that all those who have suffered as a result of our nation's actions are fairly compensated. We must expand RECA to include uranium mill workers and other groups of workers who are suffering as a result of their exposure to uranium dust or other materials. We also must ensure the law is expanded to include underground uranium miners in all states. By doing so we can make good on our debt to workers who have sacrificed their health--and sometimes their lives--during the height of the Cold War in order to protect their country. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to meet these goals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled, ``Brief History of Uranium Mining in South Dakota, 1951-1973,'' produced by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and a letter from Sharon Kane be printed in the Record.