Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that the article entitled ``A Military Problem Money Can't Solve,'' which appeared in this morning's New York Times, be printed in the Record. It helps to illustrate why the Senate should have taken a closer look at the provisions of S. 4 before voting on it. Had hearings been held on the bill, and had we awaited the completion of studies by the CBO, GAO and Defense Department, perhaps some Senators would have had a chance to become familiar with the reasons that our service men and women leave the military. As this article makes clear, retention may depend more on improving quality of life than increasing pay and pensions. The article follows: [The New York Times, Tuesday, Mar. 2, 1999] A Military Problem Money Can't Solve (By Lucian K. Truscott 4th) Los Angeles.--While members of the armed services are underpaid and over-worked, the bill recently passed by the Senate that gives them a pay raise doesn't address the real problem: keeping skilled officers and noncommissioned officers from leaving in mid-career. The Army, Navy and Air Force now face serious enlistment shortfalls. For example, last year the Navy fell 7,000 short of its recruitment goal. The bill would raise military pay 4.8 percent and increase reenlistment bonuses and retirement benefits. But even if the improved benefit package helps attract more recruits, there will continue to be a shortfall unless the military does more to keep mid-career soldiers from resigning. Over the past few years, I have been in touch with more than 100 men and women who have resigned from the service, chiefly because my last two books have been about the military. Not once have I heard them say that they left the service because the pay was low. For many, quality-of-life factors drove them away. They complain that junior officers and enlisted men and women with families are assigned to military housing that is old and badly maintained. On many bases both here and abroad, there is a shortage of housing, forcing many young families to live off the base. Civilian landlords in neighborhoods near military bases often charge above-market rents because they know military families are a captive market. Deployments to far-off ``peace-keeping'' missions are another reason for mid-career attrition. With all of the services shorthanded, assignments to these hardship missions are far more frequent than in the past. Moreover, to soldiers who have been trained to fight, many of these peacekeeping missions seem pointless. But the complaint I've heard as often as any other has been about the system for advancement. One former officer told me that the military's traditional ``zero defects'' policy now applies to careers, not just to the readiness of a unit or to effectiveness in combat. One bad rating from a senior officer can end a career. ``Everyone seems afraid to take the slightest chance at making a mistake,'' he said, for fear of getting a bad review. So the mid-level officers may be jumping ship because the solution--which would include dissolving the unfair ratings system--is too radical to ever be considered. Dissatisfaction with the overall ratings system for officers also helps to explain why the 20 percent increase in retirement benefits called for in the Senate bill is unlikely to improve retention rates. There are fewer slots as you go higher in rank, so promotions get harder. In the past, for example, a major who wasn't promoted to lieutenant colonel could stay at the same rank and still get full retirement benefits after 20 years of service. Now many of those who don't get promoted are asked to leave the military. The new officer rating system, established a year ago, has rigorous quotas that insure that only a certain number of soldiers are promoted--and reach retirement age. The ratings system uses four levels, but no more than half of the soldiers a superior officer oversees can be given the top rating. Soldiers who consistently score at the top are the ones who will qualify for retirement benefits, the bulk of which kick in at 20 years of service. But that means the other half has little or no chance of qualifying for retirement, and it's this group that is more likely to resign from the service at mid-career. Several former military men have told me that after receiving what they considered to be unfair low ratings as junior officers they drew the conclusion that they would never be able to serve 20 years and reach retirement. Each of them decided to resign early rather than stick around and learn late in his career that his services were no longer wanted by the military. ``They tell you that if you're not going to go all the way to 20, you'd better get out by the end of your eighth year, because the corporate world won't take you after that,'' one former soldier explained. Many former soldiers I have corresponded with have described their decisions to resign from the military as complex and painful. But the emotion they express most frequently is anger. ``I think the most important reason for leaving is that the Army pays lip service to taking care of its own, but it really doesn't,'' one former officer wrote. Still another former military man described the plight of the mid-career professional soldier this way: ``They are sent to far-off places with inadequate support, pointless missions and foolish rules of engagement so the cocktail party set back in D.C. . . . can have their consciences feel good.'' Many of the military men and women I've interviewed see no one in senior leadership positions standing up and telling the politicians that while a pay raise is nice, there are a lot of other problems that need to be addressed. As one former officer wrote me, ``Money would help, but it will not cure.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Peace Corps and to join with my colleague Senator Paul Coverdell to introduce legislation to make technical modifications to the Peace Corps Act. The changes made by this legislation are purely technical and largely designed to remove certain outmoded restrictions on Peace Corps activities. I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a section-by-section analysis of this bill at the conclusion of my remarks. Now let me turn to the general subject of the Peace Corps as today is the thirty eighth anniversary of its establishment. Thirty eight years ago, a young President recognized the power that American ingenuity, idealism and, most of all, volunteerism could have on the lives of people around the world. In order to harness that energy, President Kennedy formed a small army, not of soldiers to make war, but of volunteers to build peace through mutual understanding. Since its inception in 1961, more than 151,000 Peace Corps volunteers have battled against the scourges of malnutrition, illiteracy and economic underdevelopment in 132 countries around the world. I can speak with some personal experience about the Peace Corps as I have had the privilege to serve as a volunteer. In fact, slightly more than thirty years ago, I arrived back in the United States after spending two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in a rural village in the Dominican Republic. Like many who heeded President Kennedy's call to do something larger than ourselves, to be a part of something greater than our own existence, my service in the Peace Corps remains one of the most important periods in my life. When I served in the Peace Corps, nearly all of us volunteers had similar experiences. We worked in small isolated villages with little in the way of modern conveniences. The world since that time has changed and the Peace Corps has been evolving to meet new demands. Today's volunteers specialize in education, the environment, small business, agriculture and other fields. In 1996, the Peace Corps developed a ``Crisis Corps'' to provide short term emergency and humanitarian assistance in situations ranging from natural disasters to refugee crises. While many volunteers continue to live in remote villages, this is no longer an iron clad rule. Some now labor in urban areas, passing on the skills needed to start and run businesses. The more than 6,500 volunteers who today serve in 87 nations are a more diverse group than the one I joined three decades ago. When I served, the Corps was mostly male and mostly young. Today, however, nearly sixty percent of all volunteers are women, a quarter are over 29, and six percent are over fifty. While the face and methods of the Peace Corps have changed over the years, its goal has remained constant: to help people of other countries meet their needs for trained personnel; to help promote understanding of the American people by those we serve; and to help promote better understanding among the American people about the world beyond our borders. By building bridges between the United States and other countries, the Peace Corps advances our foreign policy by communicating America's values and ideas to other peoples around the globe. It is an indication of the success of the Peace Corps that, while the current class of volunteers is providing new services and working in countries never served before, the demand continues to outpace supply. We need only look at a newspaper, Mr. President, to see where Peace Corps volunteers are needed. In the Caribbean countries ravaged by Hurricane Georges and Mitch, in formerly war-torn areas of Africa and in countries where the skills needed to start a business have been nearly erased by decades of communist rule. In order to meet these needs, Congress and President Clinton have set the admirable goal of reaching 10,000 Peace Corps volunteers by 2000. The Peace Corps, Mr. President, stands as an example of what is great about the United States. Our volunteerism, humanity and sense of justice are proudly displayed in the face of each volunteer we send overseas. And every time I meet volunteers about to embark on their two years of service, I share their sense of excitement. If each of us, in our daily lives, work in the same spirit as those volunteers--helping those around us and sharing the values of our nation--the United States will indeed have a proud and bright future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. DODD. Lastly, I don't have this with me, but I am going to ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record as well, Mr. President. I spent a couple of hours yesterday in my State with the Garner Group, a successful firm that represents 35,000 clients worldwide--public and private entities--and has a pretty good fix on what is happening at home and abroad. They have a new assessment, an updated assessment, an industry-by-industry assessment worldwide, national assessments, and for major nations around the globe as to where they are in all of this. I thought it might be worthwhile for the public and our colleagues to see that most recent information. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I feel compelled to explain the reasons for my vote against this bill in spite of my strong support for the goals for which this bill strives. Clearly, our armed forces personnel deserve the best pay and benefits that this nation can provide for them. I am aware of the recruiting and retention problems being faced by the services, and I know that the Armed Services Committee had those problems in mind as they drafted this legislation. I do believe, however, that we need to look more closely at how we can solve the military recruitment and retention problems. That question has not been adequately studied. Perhaps a pay raise will stem the tide of personnel leaving the military. Maybe people are leaving simply because this nation has enjoyed several years of a strong economy. The reduced pension could be the reason that people are leaving. The point I make is that we are not really sure why the military is having difficulty meeting its recruitment and retention goals, and this bill seems to be a shotgun approach to solving that problem. The President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget makes allowances for the problems that the armed services are facing. The proposed budget would increase military pay across the board by 4.4%, there would be greater increases for mid-career personnel and military pensions would be increased from 40% to 50%. These changes are not minor. They will cost billions of dollars over the next six years, and I applaud the Administration for offering these additions to our military pay and benefits programs. The difference between the President's proposal and this bill is that the President's proposal is paid for in the budget. This bill, on the other hand, is not funded. No one has any idea where the funding will come from to pay for this bill's generous provisions. I read the Congressional Budget Office's report on this legislation. That report has been entered in the Congressional Record, and it estimates that enactment of the bill would raise discretionary spending by $1.1 billion in 2000 and $13.8 billion from 2000 to 2004. According to statements from several Senators on the floor, the amendments that were added to this bill would increase the cost by a couple of billion more over the next several years. To spend that amount of money when we do not have a source of funding is irresponsible. To fund this bill, we will have to find offsets in the defense budget, use surplus funds, or raid domestic spending. I oppose all of those means. Several of my colleagues have expressed concern about the cost of this bill. They assume, I suppose, that this bill will become more reasonable in conference. Perhaps they plan to oppose this bill if, after conference, there is still no means to fund it. I, however, cannot in good conscience vote to send this bill to conference in the hope that it will somehow emerge vastly improved and worthy of my support. Beyond the funding problems inherent in this legislation, there are a few other problems I would like to address. First, the Secretary of Defense does not support this bill. In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Secretary Cohen stated that this bill ``could raise hopes that cannot be fulfilled until the final budget number is set.'' Like the Secretary, I would like to support this bill, but it would not be right to support this expanded package of pay and benefits for military personnel now, and then, later, to decide that we are not willing to fund the entire package. This amounts to an authorization bill. The check for these funds is not written. Again, no one knows how we are going to appropriate money to pay for this. Unfortunately, there have been no hearings on this bill. I would think that a $16 billion unfunded mandate deserved at least a hearing or two. I would have liked to have known what the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought of this bill's provisions. I would have liked to have seen the studies that show the effect that each of these provisions has on recruitment and retention. There was no testimony, and there were no studies. There was just a rush to ``do something,'' and what we have done here is irresponsible. The first legislation to pass through the Senate in the 106th Congress is a $16 billion, budget-busting, unfunded mandate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator McConnell, in introducing this resolution to provide for funding for the standing committees of the Senate. This resolution authorizes committee expenditures for the remaining seven months of Fiscal Year 1999. This resolution is being enacted pursuant to S. Res. 38, adopted on February 12, 1999. Since 1989, the Committee has provided funding for the committees on a biennial basis. This has proved to be an effective management tool for assuring continuity of funding throughout a Congress. The Committee does not intend that this short-term funding resolution signal a departure from that tradition. Instead, this seven-month continuing resolution will allow the Rules Committee to consider the impact of changes in the Senate's financial management and accounting systems, which have been necessitated by Year 2000 (Y2K) concerns, on the committee funding cycle. Under normal procedures, each committee would have reported its biennial funding resolution to the Senate by January 31, and the Rules Committee would have then acted to report an omnibus committee biennial funding resolution providing funding for the period March 1, 1999 through February 28, 2001. The Rules Committee will initiate that process in late spring, so that each committee will have the opportunity to present its budget to the Rules Committee for action prior to enactment of a funding resolution for the remainder of the biennial period. During this period, the Committee will also seek input from the chairmen and ranking members of the standing committees with regard to changes in committee funding which may be required to conform to the Senate's new Y2K compliant financial system. This resolution funds committees at the current baseline level, increased by a 3.1% salary cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). This resolution also authorizes the use of Special Reserves, which are the reprogrammed funds remaining in the appropriations account at the end of the committee funding cycle on February 28. These funds are made available to committees to meet unforeseen, non-recurring expenses. These funds are accessed by the joint request of the chairman and ranking member of the committee, and the joint approval of the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee. I commend my colleague, the Chairman, for his efforts to bring this resolution to the Senate floor today. By adopting this resolution, we are ensuring continued funding for committees while at the same time allowing the Rules Committee to fully review the impact on committees of changes in the Senate financial management and accounting system. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that a statement I submitted to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on the committee's markup of S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Mr. Chairman, improving our nation's schools is clearly a crucial task and one deserving of the committee's time and attention. However, I regret that the committee has chosen to proceed with the consideration of Senator Frist's Ed Flex bill today, just a scant hour after two of this century's most important Senate votes. The Senate is currently engaged in the conduct of our most serious constitutional duty--the impeachment trial of the President. Rightfully, this undertaking has engaged all of our time and energy. Beyond our required attendance on the Senate floor, we have also each been engaged in party conferences, smaller group discussions with our colleagues and other meetings crucial to the Senate's consideration. Today, in particular, was a crucial moment in this proceeding, with two historic votes on continuing the trial. These votes necessitated further discussions and meetings in search of a consensus on how to proceed. And yet, in the midst of this turmoil, the committee chose to go forward with this mark up. I believe this step was both inappropriate and unwise. Education and the other issues before our committee are too important to move forward without our full attention and involvement. We need the opportunity to thoughtfully examine Ed Flex and other proposals, consider changes and discuss these issues with each other and our staffs. Without this level of involvement, the chances for moving strong, bipartisan legislation with any hope of passage diminish significantly. I recognize that putting these matters aside until the impeachment trial is a settled matter is particularly difficult when discussing education. We all care a great deal about education and improving our schools. And we all know, contrary to what we have all been doing since we got here in January, education is the work we were sent here to do by our constituents. In addition, the measure before the committee today, the Education Flexibility Partnership bill, is one that we all spent a great deal of time on last year. I personally offered three amendments and worked cooperatively and extensively with Senator Frist to improve the underlying language of the bill throughout the committee's consideration. Ultimately, I voted for the bill, but had significant reservations, which I expressed in my additional views to the committee report. Unfortunately, nothing in these intervening months has happened to allay my concerns. We have had no hearing on this demonstration program or this bill. There continues to be basically no data on gains in student achievement--the central goal of the Ed Flex program. We continue to consider this legislation outside of the context of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, where it rightly belongs. We have had two GAO reports raising fundamental issues about the Ed Flex program. We have yet to consider other significant proposals for reform in our schools. And, yet, in moving forward today, the committee is clearly intent on proceeding without addressing or considering these concerns. Mr. Chairman. I remain convinced that you and Senator Frist are committed to working in a bipartisan fashion on this bill and in developing strong education policy generally. It is clear this is only path by which we can get things done. But bipartisanship is hard work that demands substantive engagement by members. In my view, there was clearly not the time or opportunity to do so, today, with the Senate so rightfully occupied with impeachment. I look forward to the days, hopefully in the near future, where we can turn our full attention to this bill and our committee's full agenda.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to briefly explain my reasons for opposing this amendment to S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights. This amendment may look alright on the surface, but it falls apart when it is closely examined. Apparently, no one has estimated how much this amendment would cost if it became law, and no one knows how we would fund the changes that this amendment would require in the pension system. I cannot in good conscience support a measure when we have not considered that basic information. I fully support the goals of this bill and this amendment. I think that our men and women in uniform deserve good pay and benefits, but we must be responsible when we take these sorts of actions. Our uniformed personnel would be the first to tell us that. There have been no hearings on this amendment or this bill, and there is no evidence that this change in pension policy for military retirees will improve retention. I want to focus on the issue of how we would pay for this amendment. It seems to me that a vote for this amendment is a vote to cut military procurement, research and development, military construction, or some other item in the defense budget. If it is not a vote to cut the defense budget, a vote for this amendment would have us dip into the surplus to cover the full pensions of military retirees. I would prefer to see the surplus go towards ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security. Perhaps, though, the drafters of this amendment do not intend to find offsets in the defense budget or use the surplus. In that case, the only thing left to do to fund this amendment is to go into domestic spending. I would most certainly be opposed to that course of action. In short, none of the three possible options for funding this amendment appeals to me, and that is why I opposed it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to extend a word of thanks to Chief Justice Rehnquist for his distinguished service in presiding over this trial. The Supreme Court sits just a few short yards from this Chamber. Yet, its Justices and its working remain largely unknown to those of us who serve here. Perhaps that conceptual distance successfully reflects the Framers' construct of legislative and judicial branches that act for the most part independently of one another. Suffice it to say that our knowledge of the Chief Justice was rather limited prior to the commencement of the impeachment trial. We knew of his reputation as a formidable intellect, as a scholar--including on the topic of impeachment--, and as an efficient manager of courtroom. We did not as a group know much more about him. What we learned during that course of that trial is that the Chief Justice brought his many estimable qualities to bear on this unique legal challenge. He brought a deep historical understanding of the impeachment process. He instilled confidence in each Senator that he would conduct himself in a manner faithful to the role prescribed for the chief justice by the Framers. All all times, he guided the trial with a firm and fair hand-not hesitating to use his judgment and common sense when appropriate, but never pressing a point of view on matters better left to the collective judgment of the Senate. He demonstrated a continuing respect and appreciation for the workings of this body. Last but not least, he brought a refreshing sense of humor to his task, which made our task as triers of fact somewhat more bearable. Although this was an historic occasion, no one who took part in it relished doing so. There is collective relief, I think, that this constitutional ordeal is now behind us. But as we look back at these past remarkable weeks, we can all take comfort and pride in knowing that this second impeachment trial in our nation's history was presided over by an individual of great intelligence, historical knowledge, and wit. These qualities made him uniquely suited to his task. The Senate and the entire nation owe a debt of thanks to Chief Justice Rehnquist for rendering such value and distinguished service.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate has just discharged its duty under the Constitution to try the impeachment of President Clinton. We have rendered our judgment. We have been asked to consider another, albeit lesser, form of punishment of the President--a resolution of censure. That resolution is authored by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett. Senator Feinstein attempted to bring it before the Senate by way of a motion to suspend the rules in order to permit her motion to proceed. The Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, objected, and then moved to indefinitely postpone consideration of Mrs. Feinstein's motion. Since two-thirds of the Senate failed to vote in the negative, his point of order was sustained, and the motion to proceed failed. I did not support Senator Gramm's motion for the simple reason that I did not believe it appropriate to deny to Senator Feinstein and others the opportunity to bring before the Senate a resolution of censure following the conclusion of the impeachment trial of the President. Had this resolution or something similar to it--say, a proposal to make ``findings of fact'' about the President's conduct--been offered during the impeachment trial, I would have strenuously opposed its consideration. In my view, such a proposal is not permitted by the Constitution when raised as part of an impeachment trial. The Constitution is clear on this point. Article I, Section 3 states that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States. . . .'' Our sole choice when trying an impeachment case is whether or not to convict and remove (and then disqualify from holding any further office) the individual in question. The Framers decided not to give Senators leeway to create additional judgment options--no matter how creative, convenient, or compelling they may be. Because Senator Feinstein's motion was made after the conclusion of the trial, during legislative session, I believed it was appropriate and timely for the Senate's consideration. That is not to say, however, that I would have supported the resolution had the motion to proceed carried. On the contrary, I would have opposed it--as I would have opposed each of the several proposed censure resolutions that have circulated in recent days. The President has acted in a manner worthy of censure. No one denies that. However, I have serious misgivings about a censure resolution emanating from this body and this body alone. I am concerned about what it may mean--not for this President, but for the institution of the presidency. I understand the passion to voice--loudly and unmistakably--disapproval of the President's conduct. But it must be tempered by an even greater passion for the office he holds, and for the constitutional balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. The Federalist Number 73 speaks of ``the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments.'' It warns of a presidency ``stripped of [its] authorities by successive resolutions, or annihilated by a single vote.'' My colleagues, we must qualify our understandable disdain for this president's conduct with the admonition to protect the office that he will occupy for a mere 23 months longer. Nowhere does the Constitution expressly permit us to take up such a resolution. Nor does it expressly prohibit such a step. Yet the Senate, and the Congress as a whole, has been remarkably restrained in even considering censure resolutions. It has been even more reluctant to adopt them. Only once, in 1834, was a president formally censured by resolution. Three years later, that resolution was expunged. The President at that time was Andrew Jackson. The driving force behind his censure was Henry Clay. Jackson had defeated Clay in the presidential election of 1832. In 1834, they remained bitter political adversaries. Jackson argued that the resolution was repugnant to the constitutional principle of checks and balances between the branches of government. If the Senate wanted to punish him, he said, it had only one avenue acceptable under the Constitution: it would have to wait for the House to send an impeachment. I am not convinced that a resolution censuring a president is unconstitutional. But I certainly agree that it is, at least in the context of the present case, unwise. There have been numerous instances where presidents behaved in a manner deemed outrageous and even dangerous to the country. Franklin Roosevelt was roundly criticized for his efforts to ``pack'' the Supreme Court. President Truman seized the steel mills. President Reagan and then-Vice President Bush presided over the executive branch while an illegal scheme, run out of the White House, was conducted to sell arms to Iran and use proceeds from those sales to support armed rebellion in Nicaragua. The behavior of these individuals arguably was at least as egregious as President Clinton's. But the Senate did not pursue a censure resolution against any of them. Ours is not a parliamentary system. In the United States, we do not entertain votes of ``no confidence'' against our chief executive. We elect presidents, not prime ministers. A censure resolution in the present instance will seem modest, perhaps even insignificant, in relation to the impeachment conducted by the House. However, future generations may well come to view censure as an American-made vote of ``no confidence'' against future occupants of the Oval Office. We may pave the way to a new form of executive punishment. And it may be used not only in cases of personal misconduct. It could be used against a president who simply makes an unpopular or unwise, but nevertheless lawful and well-intended, decision. Ultimately, we could subject future presidents, who have not been impeached, to this form of punishment. In doing so, we risk eroding the independence and authority of the presidency. I do not want to see the Senate take such a risk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, 31 days ago at about this very hour we gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in closed session to begin the journey that has brought us to where we are today. We are only hours away from casting what Robert C. Byrd has appropriately described as the most important vote that any of us have cast or are likely to cast in our service as U.S. Senators. For only the second time in our Nation's glorious history, we, who are temporary custodians of these 100 seats, will decide whether to take the most extraordinary and grave action that could ever be asked of U.S. Senators. A decision to declare war or amend our Constitution pales in comparison to trying the impeachment of a popularly elected President of the United States. Unlike the House of Representatives, we did not decide to initiate the impeachment action. We did not seek this burden. It has been thrust upon us. Our responsibilities were limited to how to proceed in this trial and what verdict to render. Despite our procedural differences along the way, the Senate has fulfilled, in my view, Alexander Hamilton's vision as a ``tribunal significantly and sufficiently dignified.'' The credit for that result, I suggest, belongs primarily to Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, and to Trent Lott, the majority leader. Let history record that these two leaders, saddled with different challenges, led us with patience, fairness, good humor and dignity. I have listened intently to all of you who have spoken on this matter, and I urge all Senators to add the reason for your vote to this record for, in many respects, it will be our words, our thinking, our rationale that will be revisited in the coming millennium, when and if those who succeed us in this Chamber are ever asked to confront the judgment that is upon us. The contemporary press will record what decisions we have reached, but the cold, dispassionate eye of history will also scrutinize collectively and individually how we reached our conclusion and what impact this ordeal has had on the Constitution, the Congress, the courts, the Presidency and the maintenance of our tripartite federal system of government. I agree heartily with those who say we should not decide this matter on the polls and the popularity of this President, but nor should we totally disregard the voices of those who elected this President or who have sent us here to represent them, including the voices of those who voted against us. It is not entirely insignificant that of the 13 House Republican managers who have presented their case, seven were unopposed in the last election and three were elected with such significant majorities they were virtually unopposed. I find it disheartening that the passion for conviction of 10 of the 13 House managers may not have been tempered by the voices of dissent within their own congressional districts. I sincerely hope that as we consider the facts of this case, the law in this case, and the impact of removing this President, we will give equal consideration to the impact on the Office of the Presidency. It is clear from the Federalist papers that the framers wanted a strong, independent and energetic executive, and in the words of Alexander Hamilton, free of ``propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights and to absorb the powers of other departments.'' As our presiding Chief Justice properly noted in his book ``Grand Inquests,'' the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787 borrowed many of its ideas from existing governments and from political philosophers, but it did make two original contributions to the art of government. The first was the idea of a Presidential as opposed to a parliamentary system of government. In the introduction of his treatise on impeachment, I say to my colleague from New York and repeat his words, the noted constitutional scholar, Charles Black, reminds us that the Presidency is a prime symbol of our national unity. The election of the President is the only political act we perform together as a Nation. Voting in the Presidential election is certainly the political choice most significant to the American people and most closely attended by them. No matter, then, can be of higher political importance than our considering whether, in any given instance, this act of choice is to be undone and the chosen President dismissed from office in disgrace. Charles Black adds forebodingly, as Pat Moynihan has already noted, everyone--everyone--must shrink from this most drastic of measures. In all candor, I say to you, my colleagues, I saw little evidence in the House majority of shrinking from the drastic measure of impeachment. I revere the Presidency, and I wish all future occupants of the Oval Office to inherit a strong, independent, and energetic office. Now to the specifics of the case. I fear the precedent of this impeachment case will come to haunt us. The scandal has seriously bruised every institution that has come in contact with it, but none has been battered more than the executive branch itself. The culpability for this damage lies first and foremost with President Clinton. His illicit affair with a young woman, a subordinate in the west wing of the White House has properly been greeted with universal condemnation. President Clinton's subsequent and misleading false statements to his staff, his Cabinet, the country, and others is abhorrent. History will judge his actions and significant lapses of judgments harshly, as it should. If he is acquitted by this Senate, he will not, as some have suggested, get off scot-free. To stand as the only popularly elected President to be impeached will relegate him as the Hester Prynne in the pantheon of our Chief Executives. Do not allow your decision to convict this President to be influenced by the false and ludicrous notion that he will emerge from this national nightmare unscathed if you vote to acquit. President Ford is often quoted as having said the grounds for impeachment are whatever the House of Representatives say they are by a majority vote. I do not take issue with that statement, except that it strikes me as somewhat cavalier. In the Senate, the grounds for conviction and removal of a President must not be so loosely fashioned. The grounds for conviction must be restricted to the articles of impeachment as passed by the House. I am dismayed by the argument of some that conviction can be based on reasons totally beyond the scope of the articles of impeachment. Whether we like it or not, we have a constitutional duty to confine our judgment to the specific accusations. The standard of proof that we use to arrive at our decision is probably up to each Senator, but we do not have a similar luxury to decide what grounds we may use to convict. Those grounds are set by the House and must be proven by very narrow margins on nearly party-line votes. The House Republican managers have presented us with two articles of impeachment accusing the President of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House managers have very specifically charged the President with violation of the Criminal Code, insisting that the facts prove each and every element of the criminal charges. While it is certainly true that no person, including the President, is above the law, it is equally true that no President is below the law either. By insisting that this President is in violation of specific crimes in the Criminal Code, have not the House managers, to some degree, deprived the Members of this Senate of the individual judgment when exercising a standard of proof? The standard of proof in all criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. If those who vote to convict on either count use a lesser standard than would be used in any case of any other citizen, then a vote to take the drastic measure of conviction and removal of a President from office would be based on equal standard of justice. I find it unsettling while the House Republican managers were passionately asking the Senate to convict this President of criminal charges, two of its most active managers were simultaneously expressing their own reservations. First, House Manager Lindsey Graham candidly told this Senate, in response to a question, that reasonable people could reasonably conclude to acquit this President. It appeared to me that Manager Graham was less than convinced this President was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, House Manager Asa Hutchinson, in a moment of candor on a national TV news program conceded he would not try a case such as this one. He now asks us to reach the judgment of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Does it not also strike you as somewhat strange that when given the opportunity to call any of three or four witnesses, the House managers chose not to invite Betty Currie to testify? Other than the President and Monica Lewinsky, no other person was as involved in the allegations brought by the House managers, and yet they made the calculated decision not to take her deposition. For these reasons and the careful detailed distinction drawn between the inferences made by the House managers and the direct testimony of deposed witnesses, as outlined by our colleague, Carl Levin, I cannot conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the President is guilty of the criminal charges enumerated in either article of impeachment. Thus, not only do I shrink from this most drastic of measures, I positively affirm we must not remove this President from office. Some final thoughts. The criminalization of our political process must stop before irreparable damage is done to the institutions of our federal system. It is right to condemn in harsh words the behavior of this President. It should be equally appropriate to condemn the damage done by an independent counsel statute that has spawned runaway, reckless prosecutors that storm the country trampling on our system of justice, completely unchecked by any branch of Government. The damage this President has caused his office can and will be repaired. The damage of the Office of Independent Counsel and court decisions that allow unlimited discovery in civil lawsuits may be far more difficult to repair. That fragile balance between our three coequal branches of Government is being subjected, I would suggest, to unprecedented strains as a result of the events that have occurred over these past several years. I would urge our two leaders to include an examination of these issues as part of the agenda in the 106th Congress. Thank you.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Thursday, February 4th, the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, considered several motions pertaining to the depositions and live testimony of witnesses Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. I wish to speak briefly on the important issues raised by several of these motions. First, let me say that I am pleased that the Senate, by a bipartisan vote of 30-70, voted not to compel the live testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. In my view, this was a sound decision to support the expeditious conduct of this trial, preserve the decorum of the Senate, and respect the privacy of this particular witness. Unfortunately, the Senate retreated from these same worthy aims in deciding to permit the videotaped depositions of Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Blumenthal to be entered into evidence and broadcast to the public. I believe that this decision was erroneous for three basic reasons: First, it needlessly prolonged the trial. Prior to February 4th, Senators had an opportunity to view the depositions of each of these witnesses--not once, but repeatedly. Numerous times we could have viewed the content of their testimony, the tone of their answers, and their demeanor while under oath. By requiring that Senators view portions of these depositions again on the Floor, in whole or in part, the Managers' motion unnecessarily required the Senate to convene for an entire day. We learned nothing by viewing excerpts of the depositions on the Floor that we had not already had an opportunity to learn by viewing those depositions previously, either on videotape or, in the case of myself and five other Senators, in person. Second, allowing the depositions to be publicly aired on the Senate Floor exaggerated their importance. Even Manager Hyde has acknowledged that these depositions broke no material new ground in this case. Allowing their broadcast thus was not only an injudicious use of the Senate's time. It also elevated the significance of this particular testimony over all other sworn testimony taken in this matter--solely by virtue of the fact that it was recently videotaped. Broadcasting these minuscule and marginal portions of the record--while not broadcasting other depositions--does not illuminate the record so much as distort it. The distortion is only compounded by broadcasting selected portions of those depositions rather than the depositions in their entirety. The President's counsel obviously had an opportunity to rebut the Managers' presentation and characterization of those portions. However, that rebuttal only underscores the fact that the Managers' motion to use these videotapes gave the videotapes a prominence and gravity that they do not merit. Thirdly, under the circumstances, publicly airing portions of these depositions constituted a needless invasion of the privacy of the witnesses whose testimony was videotaped. Let us remember that these individuals are not public figures who have willingly surrendered a portion of their privacy as a consequence of their freely chosen status. They are private citizens, reluctantly drawn into legal proceedings. They have attempted to discharge their obligations in those proceedings. But that obligation does not extend to the public broadcast of their videotaped depositions--particularly given that they have testified repeatedly before, and that their videotaped testimony contains no new material information. The privacy rights of these individuals deserved greater consideration by the Managers and by the Senate. The Managers did not need to force the images of these witnesses into the living rooms and family rooms of America in order to present their case. And the Senate did not need to allow that to happen in order to meet its constitutional responsibility in this matter. For these reasons, Mr. President, I opposed the Managers' motion to broadcast the deposition videotapes. In my view, the time has come to bring this matter to an end. The record is voluminous, the arguments have been made. We know enough to decide the questions before us. That is why I supported Senator Daschle's motion to proceed to final arguments and a vote on each of the Articles of Impeachment. I regret that his motion was not adopted, and that instead the Senate decided to needlessly prolong this matter without sufficient regard for the privacy of the witnesses deposed last week. However, that said, I am pleased that, barring any unforseen developments, this trial will at last conclude later this week. It is time for the Senate to move on to the other important business of the country that we were elected to address.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, voted on Senator Byrd's motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment brought by the Managers from the House of Representatives. I voted in support of this motion, and would like to briefly state my position on this important question. While the motion failed, it received the support of forty-four senators--eleven more votes than needed to acquit the President of the charges made by the Articles. Therefore, this vote demonstrates to a near certainty that there are insufficient votes to support the Managers' position that the President should be convicted. This result comes as a surprise to no one--including most if not all of those who support the President's removal. These Articles should never have been presented to the Senate. The President's actions were undoubtedly reprehensible. They deserve condemnation and may warrant prosecution after he leaves office. But they do not warrant removal--a sanction unprecedented in our nation's history, and one that the Framers of our Constitution envisioned would be used in only the rarest of circumstances to protect the country. The case presented by the Managers is fatally deficient in three respects: First, the facts presented, even if viewed in the light most favorable to the Managers' case, do not allege conduct that meets the high standard laid out by the framers for the impeachment, conviction, and removal from office of a president. Second, the articles as drafted are vague and contain multiple allegations--denying the President the fairness and due process that is the right of every American citizen, and depriving senators of the clarity that is essential to discharging their responsibility as triers of fact. Third, the Managers have failed to present facts that meet their heavy burden of proving the allegations contained in the Articles. Let me address these points in turn. The conduct alleged by the Managers to be worthy of conviction arises out of a private, civil lawsuit and a private, consensual, yet improper relationship between the President and Ms. Monica Lewinsky. It is the President's conduct in that lawsuit and in that relationship that are the basis of the charges at issue here. No charges arise from his official conduct as President. (It is worth noting that, with regard to the Jones matter, the Supreme Court itself considered the conduct alleged therein to be private. The Court ruled that, while the President may delay or avoid until leaving office lawsuits based on his official conduct, he may claim no such immunity in an action based on private conduct unrelated to official duties.) The Managers claim that what is at issue is not the President's private actions but his actions in connection with efforts to prevent his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky from becoming known to his family and others. These actions, the Managers argue--including his testimony in the grand jury and his statements to staff and others--are official in nature. However, these actions clearly arise out of the President's efforts to keep secret a personal relationship which he admitted to be wrong. Under no reasonable analysis can they be understood to relate to the President's official duties. It follows, then, that the President's actions certainly do not rise to the level of ``treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' set forth by the Framers as the standard for removing a president from office. As Alexander Hamilton explained, impeachment is to be reserved as ``a remedy for great injuries done to the society itself''. The impeachment process is intended to protect the nation from official wrongdoing, not punish a president for personal misconduct. It is not in my view reasonable to conclude that the President's actions--while by his own admission wrong and offensive--pose a danger to the institutions of our society. The President's past behavior did not--and his continuation in office does not--pose a threat to the stability of those institutions. Indeed, I submit that convicting and removing the President based on these actions, not the actions themselves, would have a destabilizing effect on our institutions of government. Were this scenario to come to pass, then henceforth any president would have to worry that he or she could be removed on a partisan basis for essentially personal conduct. That standard would weaken the presidency. In the words of Madison, it would in effect make the president's term equivalent to ``a tenure during pleasure of the Senate'', and upset the careful system of checks and balances established by the Framers to govern relations between the legislative and executive branches. The Articles also deserve to be dismissed because of the fatally flawed manner in which they are drafted. Those flaws are of two separate kinds. First, the Articles fail to allege wrongdoing with the kind of specificity required to allow the President--or indeed, any person--to defend himself, and to allow the Senate to fully understand and judge the charges made against him. White House counsel described the articles as an ``empty vessel'', a ``moving target'' where neither the President nor the Senate knows with precision what has been alleged. Senators were presented with videotaped testimony of former federal prosecutors who stated that standard prosecutorial practice requires that allegations of perjury and obstruction must be stated with particularity and specificity. The allegations here have not been so stated. That lack of specificity is manifestly unfair to the President. And it is detrimental to the Senate's ability to discharge its responsibility as the trier of fact in this case. The second fatal structural flaw in the Articles is that the Managers have aggregated multiple allegations of wrongdoing into single Articles. Article I allows the President to be impeached for ``one or more'' of four enumerated, unspecified categories of alleged misconduct. Similarly, in Article II he is alleged to have obstructed justice in ``one or more'' of seven ways. This smorgasbord approach to the allegations creates the deeply troubling prospect that the President could be convicted and removed without two-thirds of the Senate agreeing on what precisely he did wrong. For this reason, too, dismissal is appropriate. Dismissal is, finally, appropriate because the facts undergirding the managers' case do not prove the criminal wrongdoing the managers allege. Manager McCollum told the Senate that it must first find criminal wrongdoing and then determine whether to remove the President from office. While it is left to each Senator to determine the standard of proof he or she will use to judge the evidence, manager McCollum's own analysis suggests that that standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, that is the standard used in all other criminal cases; why should the President be subjected to any lower standard than that to which all citizens are entitled? Indeed, he should not--not only because he deserves no less fairness than other citizens, but also because this high standard of proof is appropriate to the gravity of the sanction the Senate is being asked to impose. In my view, the Managers have failed to prove criminal culpability on the part of the President beyond a reasonable doubt. The record is replete with exculpatory, contradictory, and ambiguous facts. Consider, for example, these: (1) Ms. Lewinsky--who was questioned some 22 times by investigators, prosecutors, and grand jurors (not to mention twice by the Managers themselves)--said under oath that neither the President nor anyone else ever asked her to lie. (2) She also said--again, under oath--that no one ever promised her a job for her silence. (3) Further, she stated without contradiction that the President did not suggest that she return the gifts given her by the President to him or anyone else on his behalf. (4) Betty Currie, the President's secretary--who was questioned some nine times--likewise testified that the President did not suggest that the gifts to Ms. Lewinsky be returned. (5) She also said that she never felt pressure to agree with the President when he spoke with her following the Jones deposition, and, indeed, felt free to disagree with his recollection. (6) Lastly, the Managers argued that a December 11, 1997 ruling by the judge in the Jones case, permitting the calling of witnesses regarding the President's conduct, triggered intensive efforts that very day by the President and Vernon Jordan to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job. We now know that the facts contradict that account of the Managers. A meeting on that date between Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky was scheduled three days earlier. It was held several hours before the judge's ruling. And at the time of that ruling, Mr. Jordan was on an airplane bound for Holland. In addition, factual discrepancies between the President and Ms. Lewinsky--about when their relationship began, about the nature of the inappropriate contacts between them, about the number of those contacts, and about the number of inappropriate telephone calls between them--amount to differences in recollection that in no way can be considered criminal on the part of the President. More fundamentally, they cannot be considered material to this proceeding. Not even the Office of Independent Counsel considered these discrepancies relevant or material to the matter at hand. It cannot reasonably be argued, in any event, that the President should be removed from his office because of them. For all of these reasons--the failure of the Managers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed criminal wrongdoing, the structural flaws in the Articles themselves, and the failure of the allegations, even if proven, to warrant the unprecedented action of conviction and removal--these Articles should be dismissed. We have reviewed enough evidence, heard enough arguments, and asked enough questions to know with reasonable certainty that the flaws in the Managers' case cannot be remedied. We know enough to decide this matter now. The national interest is best served not by extending this proceeding needlessly, but by ending it. I regret that the Senate has failed to do that. But I continue to believe that we must dispose of this matter as soon as possible so we can return to the other important business of the nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, voted on a motion by the Managers for the appearance of witnesses and to admit evidence not in the trial record. I opposed this motion, and would like to briefly state my reasons for doing so. While the motion carried, the fact that it was opposed by forty-four Senators demonstrates that a large number of our colleagues believe that the record of this case is sufficient to allow Senators to decide on the articles of impeachment. Indeed, it is not merely sufficient, it is voluminous. As I will discuss more fully below, neither the Managers nor counsel for the President would in any way be harmed by a requirement that they rely on the record as presently constituted. Let me concede at the outset that this motion is not an easy one to decide. There is an argument to be made for calling witnesses. Our colleagues who believe there ought to be witnesses are motivated by earnest reasons. However, the issue for us is not whether there is a case for witnesses. It is this: do we need to hear from witnesses in order to fulfil our responsibility as triers of fact? The answer to that question, in my opinion, is no. We know enough to decide this case, and decide it now. There may be legitimate reasons for calling witnesses. But the reasons for not calling them are compelling. There are five reasons, in particular, that strongly argue against the motion. First, the record is more than sufficient to allow the Senate to decide this case. We are all painfully familiar with the essential details of this matter. Like most Americans, we have been subjected to the blizzard of media attention paid to it from its very start just over a year ago. This is not 1868, when only a handful of people could witness the last presidential impeachment. One hundred and thirty years later, we can receive an Independent Counsel's voluminous and graphic report over the Internet literally at the moment it is made available to the public. We can witness the proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee live on television. We can observe the televised impeachment proceedings in the House chamber as if we are there. This trial is now in its fourth week. We have been provided with massive portions of a record that exceeds 67,000 pages in length. We have heard days of arguments. Ninety of us have asked some 105 questions to the House Republican Managers and to counsel for the President. So I daresay that the facts of this case have been drilled into our consciousness--relentlessly, overwhelmingly, and, it seems endlessly. I should add one more adverb: repeatedly. And that leads to the second reason for not calling witnesses: they have testified repeatedly and without contradiction on the key facts. Again and again, the record shows the same questions asked of the same witnesses. Ms. Lewinsky has been questioned a total of twenty- three times, Ms. Currie nine times, Mr. Jordan six times, and Mr. Blumenthal five times. They were asked hundreds upon hundreds of questions--by some of the toughest, shrewdest legal minds in the country. Their testimony fills in excess of two thousand five hundred pages of the trial record. What is the likelihood that prolonging this trial to hear from these and possibly other witnesses will bring new details to light that could change the outcome of this trial? Regarding at least one witness--Ms. Lewinsky--we know from her interview by the Managers two weekends ago: virtually nil. A third reason to oppose this motion is that witness testimony will invite the introduction of salacious details onto the Floor of the United States Senate--details with which we are already painfully familiar, and details about which any differences between the President and Ms. Lewinsky are immaterial and irrelevant to the charges contained in the Articles presented by the House Republican Managers. The Managers tell us that they have no interest in raising any such details. But sexual misconduct is at the core of this case. Manager Bryant admitted as much when he said on the Floor that the issue in Article I is ``perjury about sex''. The same could be said about Article II--the issue is obstruction about sex. Every question about perjury or obstruction, then, necessarily invites testimony about the sexual details of this scandal. Given the massive size of the record, I do not think we need to risk allowing the Senate to become a forum for that kind of speech. It will not bring dignity to this proceeding or credit to this institution. If we somehow think that we can summon witnesses to appear in this trial and at the same time guarantee that the Senate will not become a kind of burlesque stage for the airing of this case's tawdry factual essence, let me remind my colleagues of the frenzied circus that formed immediately upon the news that Ms. Lewinsky had arrived in Washington, D.C. for questioning by the Managers. Once the door to witnesses is opened, the Senate will be hard-pressed to keep that atmosphere from spilling into this trial and this body. The fourth reason why we should not call witnesses is that they will prolong this process needlessly and extensively. Senator Warner made the point well several days ago: it is questionable whether the list of witnesses, and the time required to hear from them, could be strictly limited because to do so might deny the President his right to defend himself. The point was echoed by one of the attorneys for the President. He stated that he and his associates would be committing ``malpractice'' if they failed to seek the most aggressive possible discovery process should that course be opened to them. That discovery process may reasonably be expected to include subpoenas for documents, interviews with corroborating witnesses, depositions, examinations and cross-examinations. As any person familiar with litigation knows, such a process is not easily restricted in time and scope. It could take weeks, or longer, to conclude. During that time, Senators would not necessarily be free from the burdens of serving as triers of fact in the court of impeachment. They could well be called upon to make any number of evidentiary rulings. They could be called upon to comment publicly on matters raised during depositions-- including on salacious matters that deserve no comment. In short, this process could drag on and on. Fifth, and finally, let me say that I remain unconvinced by the argument of the Managers that witnesses are so critical here. They have failed convincingly to explain why witnesses are so indispensable in this trial if they were so dispensable during the impeachment proceedings in the other body. During those proceedings, Mr. Manager Hyde said that ``the most relevant witnesses have already testified at length about the matters in issue. And in the interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry, we will not require most of them to come before us to repeat their testimony.'' Regarding Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, he added that they ``have already testified under oath. We have their testimony. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.'' Likewise, Mr. Manager Gekas stated during the House hearings that ``bringing in witnesses to rehash testimony that's already concretely in the record would be a waste of time and serve no purpose at all.'' The fervor with which the Managers call for witnesses now is not only inconsistent with their refusal to call them earlier. It is also inconsistent with their underlying assertion that the facts in evidence already prove the President's criminal culpability. If the Managers have any doubt about whether their evidence was sufficient to prove guilt and justify removal, then they had a responsibility to resolve those doubts in the House of Representatives--before they came to this body and had us take an oath to do impartial justice. They should never have put us through this trial. In conclusion, and at the risk of stating the obvious, we should remember that we, the members of the Senate, are the triers of fact here. We are the ones who control how this trial is to be conducted. Each side deserves to be treated fairly. But neither side deserves an unlimited and open-ended right to put forth their arguments. I have never known a lawyer arguing a losing case to say he or she couldn't benefit from one more day in court. The proper response to a lengthy trial and a weak case is not more length and more case--it's an end to the case. Does anyone seriously believe that the outcome of this proceeding will be changed by allowing a parade of witnesses? Does anyone seriously believe that they will shed new and meaningful light on the key areas of this dispute? After our historic, bipartisan agreement to begin this trial, after weeks of the trial itself, after the opportunity to read a massive factual record, after the opportunity to ask over 100 questions--after all this, I do not believe that witnesses are now needed to demonstrate the Senate's commitment to conduct this trial in a fair and thorough manner. The dignity of this proceeding and the decorum of this institution are not likely to be enhanced--and could well be damaged-- by taking such a step. In my view, the Managers' motion to call witnesses is the expression of an increasingly desperate desire to breathe life into a case that-- as the vote on the motion to dismiss demonstrated--has failed to convince anywhere close to two-thirds of the Senate as to its merit. They are eager for something, anything, to rescue the sinking ship that their impeachment has become. Their motion, furthermore, is an expression of the partisan process that they began in the House and now seek to perpetuate in the Senate. Having lost five seats in the November elections, Republican leaders in the other body, including the Managers, knew that their best chance to impeach the President was during the lame duck session of the 105th Congress. So they eschewed a bipartisan inquiry, decided not to call witnesses, and forbade members from considering a censure resolution in that chamber--all so they could force a vote on articles of impeachment before the start of the 106th Congress. Two of the articles considered failed. Two others passed, but only by exceedingly slim margins: the Article alleging obstruction of justice would have failed if just five Representatives had voted differently; the Article alleging perjury would have failed if just eleven Representatives had cast their vote against impeachment. Having rushed to judgment in the House, the Managers now rush to delay judgment in the Senate. Why? I think the reason is obvious: because they know that their case is weak. From the moment the Articles were drafted in the House, they have attempted to obscure that inescapable fact. Each side of this dispute has now had ample opportunity to present its case. The time has come to bring this matter to a close, and return to the other compelling issues that we were elected to address. While I regret that the majority party in the Senate has decided to move forward with the calling of witnesses and gathering of additional information, I remain hopeful that we can conclude this trial at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Cromwell High School Boys' Varsity Soccer team for winning the 1998 Connecticut State Soccer Championship. This achievement reflects the proud soccer tradition that has been established at Cromwell High School and the outstanding caliber of its student athletes. With a first-rate team and a phenomenal level of play, the Cromwell Panthers concluded their season with an impressive record of 20-1. The Panthers became known throughout Connecticut for their strong defensive play and balanced team of players. In soccer, as in so many sports, a blend of smart players and smart decisions results in victories. The Cromwell Panthers proved they have this combination. The strength of this team was demonstrated by their ability to hold their opponents to a total of only 6 goals for the entire season. The state championship game was played with emotion against an equally talented opponent, the Old Saybrook Rams. Although the Panthers were favored to win, neither the team's coaches nor its athletes took victory for granted. After receiving two yellow cards in the first half and being outshot by their opponents for most of the game, the Panthers entered the second half with a refocused energy. The Panthers' first goal came late when Justin Linehan received a pass from Steve Dworak and sent the ball soaring just out of reach of the Rams' goalie. Steve repeated his superb passing performance when he sent a left cross pass to Mike Flanagan who headed the ball past a diving goalie with only two minutes left in the game. This final goal was a turning point in the game, bringing it to a 2-0 score in the Panther's favor and helping to guarantee their win. This championship game also took on a more personal meaning for its players and, most especially, its head coach. Sadly, Coach Mike Pitruzzello's father, Manny, passed away a week before the start of the season. In his honor, Coach Pitruzzello dedicated the Panthers' second championship win to his late father. Even during a time of personal hardship, Coach Pitruzzello continued to guide and nurture his team to a near-perfect regular season and a championship win. Nothing better reflects his love for the sport and his players than the dedication Coach Pitruzzello has shown throughout this season. I am sure his father would have not only been proud of his son, but also honored by the sportsmanship exhibited by these talented young men on the field. Winning a state championship is an exciting and gratifying moment for any young student athlete. In their win over the Old Saybrook Rams, the Cromwell Panthers demonstrated a talent they had perfected throughout their regular season with hard work and the guidance of an experienced and caring coaching staff. Furthermore, as with any team sport, it is not just one player who makes the amazing pass or singlehandedly scores the critical goal, but rather a cooperative effort from each player who offers his own special talent which ultimately adds to the success of the entire team. The Cromwell High School Boys' Varsity Soccer team exemplifies the true spirit of teamwork and tenacity, and it is because of those qualities that they are now the state champions. At this time I would like to recognize all the members and coaches of the Boys' Varsity Soccer team and, again, congratulate them all on their momentous and well-deserved victory: Head Coach Mike Pitruzzello, Assistant Coach Bruce Swanson, Freshman Coach John Harder, Paul Dworak, Steve Dworak, Tony Faienza, Mike Fazio, Mike Flanagan, Bryce Gibson, Eric Harrison, Nick Libera, Steve Libera, Justin Linehan, Shawn Maher, Jason Negrini, Mike Simeone, Ryan Steele, Ron Szymanski, Colin Whalen, and Sean Whalen.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I recognize Hartford, Connecticut's selection as a site for a Job Corps Center. The Department of Labor recently announced that Connecticut's capital city was one of four locations selected nationwide. Many years of planning have gone into Hartford's bid and the new Center enjoys the enthusiastic support of leaders in government, business, education and job training. The selection is testimony to the commitment of the Hartford community to our most disadvantaged young people, and that is why I endorsed the city's strong proposal. In 1995, the Department of Labor had requested proposals for Job Corps Center sites and Hartford's joint application with the city of Bloomfield was regarded highly. Unfortunately, the funding for proposed new Centers was rescinded in the middle of the review process and no new Job Corps Centers were selected. But Hartford, Connecticut residents did not give up and the Department of Labor vowed to honor its commitment to new Centers in the future. Hartford, Connecticut is a thriving business and cultural center, headquarters to major insurance and financial centers and home to renown theater and art museums. It is situated on the banks of the historic Connecticut River which was heralded as an American Heritage River last year. Hartford is now embarking on a major waterfront residential, recreational and workplace development plan. The city's overall unemployment rate is at 2.9 percent, but the unemployment rate for youth ages 16-19 is much higher. Despite Connecticut's economic recovery, too many young people are being left out of a job market that demands high-level skills. Hartford has many of the problems facing other large cities, including abandoned industrial sites, crumbling schools and double-digit highschool dropout rates. At one Hartford high school, the dropout rate was more than 50 percent last year. That statistic is unacceptable and why I support the need for a Job Corp Center in Hartford. It will make a critical difference in the lives of so many at-risk youth. Job Corps has been providing education and training for disadvantaged youth for more than 34 years. The program is so successful because it is a voluntary year-round program offering education, training and support services, including meals, child care and counseling. It maintains a zero tolerance for drugs and violence. Hartford is poised to undergo an economic revitalization and the Job Corps Center is a true investment in our most under-served youth. The city of Hartford and the state of Connecticut have committed $4 million toward the total development cost of $11.5 million and the Hartford Housing authority is contributing the site, valued at $420,000. The Center will be located on 12 acres in the Charter Oak Business Park being developed by the Housing Authority on the site of the former Charter Oak Terrace public housing project. When completed in 2000, the Hartford center will serve more than 200 non-residential students each year in basic education and vocational training programs and provide on-site child care. Many organizations have pledged resources to ensure the success of the Center and most important of all, employers stand ready to hire young people who complete the Job Corps program. Mr. President, I congratulate the City of Hartford and I commend the Department of Labor for their selection.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. Chief Justice, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. Chief Justice, as one of the authors of the question, a yes or no answer was requested and I object to the answer.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Information Privacy Act. This important legislation would give customers notice and choice about whether and how their financial institutions share or sell their confidential financial information. The right to privacy is among the most cherished of our constitutional rights. But this right has been under assault in a number of areas, including with regard to citizens' financial records, medical records, and prescription drug and retail purchases. This bill is an important first step in protecting consumers' most personal, sensitive financial information: their bank account balances, transactions involving their stocks and mutual funds, and payouts on their insurance policies. This information has become a commodity and is being distributed and sold among businesses all over the world but without the knowledge or consent of the consumers whose very own information is being conveyed. The sharing of their most sensitive, private financial information has become increasingly prevalent given two key factors: (1) technological advances which facilitate the collection and retrieval of information; and (2) the formation of new, diversified business affiliations, under which companies can more easily access personal data on each other's customers. In this environment, there are dangers of misuse and abuse of confidential financial information. For instance, we know of instances where, without customer permission, some banks have provided in-house, affiliate brokers with lists of older customers who have maturing CDs. The brokers then solicited these consumers for risky investments, which they mislead the customer to believe were FDIC-insured. The Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999 would require banks and securities firms to protect the privacy of their customers' financial records. Customers would be given the opportunity to prevent banks and securities firms from disclosing or selling this information to affiliates. Before banks or securities firms could disclose or sell the information to third parties, they would be required to give notice to the customer and obtain the express written permission of the consumer before making any such disclosure. Last September, Senator Sarbanes and I proposed legislation similar to the Financial Information Privacy Act as an amendment to HR 10, the Financial Services Modernization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated in the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 8-10 along party lines. I was disappointed by this outcome, but am heartened by comments from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who acknowledge financial privacy as an important issue. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee and other interested members on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, six years ago, I came to the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Act. That introduction and the signing of the bill into law a few weeks later by President Clinton was the culmination of an eight-year struggle to make job-protected leave accessible for working Americans, in times of family or medical emergency. Today, at a time when many Americans are deeply cynical toward the work we do here in Washington, the Family and Medical Leave Act stands in sharp contrast. It responded to a deep and genuine need among American Families. Over the last six years, I have heard from many working Americans about what this law has meant to them. But no story captures the impact of our work better than the one expectant mother I heard from who kept a copy of the Family and Medical Leave Act in her bedside table. She had a difficult pregnancy and was often on doctor-ordered bed rest; she said she kept the FMLA nearby and read it as reassurance that she wouldn't lose her job or her health insurance. The Family and Medical Leave Act has been a lifeline for tens of millions of families as they have responded at those key moments that define a family--when there is a new child or when serious illness strikes. With the FMLA, working Americans can take 12 weeks off to cope with these basic family needs without worry that they will lose their jobs or their health insurance. Yet, even with the success of the FMLA there is still more work to be done. Millions of Americans are not covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act and continue to face painful choices involving their competing responsibilities to family and work. In fact, over one-quarter of working Americans needed to take family and medical leave in 1998 but were unable to do so. Forty-four percent of these Americans did not take the leave they needed because they would have lost their jobs or their employers do not allow it. Today, forty-three percent of private sector employees remain unprotected by the FMLA because their employer does not meet the current 50 or more employee threshold. The legislation I introduce today--the Family and Medical Leave Fairness Act of 1999--will extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to millions of Americans who remain uncovered. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Murray, Mikulski, Harkin, Kerry, Akaka, and Boxer. This bill would lower the threshold to include coverage for companies with 25 or more workers. This small step would provide 13 million additional workers with protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act--raising the total percentage of the private sector workforce covered by the FMLA to 71 percent. In my view, these workers deserve the same job security in times of family and medical emergency that workers in larger companies receive from the Family and Medical Leave Act. With this legislation they will receive it. Now, for those of my colleagues who still harbor doubts about the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I strongly urge them to examine the bipartisan Commission of Leave report and other studies that documents the positive impact of this legislation. When the bill was passed in 1993, provisions in the legislation established a commission to examine the impact of the act on workers and businesses. The Family and Medical Leave Commission's analysis spanned two and a half years. It included independent research and field hearings across the country to learn first hand about the act's impact from individuals and the business community. The report's conclusions are clear--the Family and Medical Leave Act is helping to expand opportunities for working Americans while at the same time not placing any undue burden on employers. According to the Commission's final report, the Family and Medical Leave Act represents ``A significant step in helping a larger cross- section of working Americans meet their medical and family care giving needs while still maintaining their jobs and economic security.'' Due to this legislation, Americans now possess greater opportunities to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take longer leaves for a greater number of reasons. In fact, according to the bipartisan Commission--12 million workers took job-protected leave for reasons covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act during the 18 months of its study. Not only are American workers reaping the benefits. The law is working for American business as well. The conclusions of the bipartisan report are a far cry from the concerns that were voiced when this law was being considered in Congress. The vast majority of businesses--over 94%--report little to no additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. More than 92% reported no noticeable effect on profitability. And nearly 96% reported no noticeable effect on business growth. Additionally, 83% of employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. In fact, 12.6% actually reported a positive effect on employee productivity from the Family and Medical Leave Act, twice as many as reported a negative effect. And not only did employers report that compliance with the FMLA was relatively easy and of minimal cost, but work sites with a small number of employees generally reported greater ease of administration and even smaller costs than large work sites. Today, I introduce this legislation with the hope and expectation that we can put aside our political differences and build on the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Last November, the American people gave us mandate--a mandate for good governance. The Family and Medical Leave Act represents the fulfillment of this goal and I urge all my colleagues to join with me in supporting this critically important legislation for America's working families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join a number of my colleagues in introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. There is no better way to reward work than by ensuring each and every worker be paid a living wage. During the past three decades, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined by 30 percent. Even after the modest minimum wage increase in 1996, a person working full-time for the minimum wage earns only $10,712 a year, nearly $3,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. That paycheck must pay for food, housing, health care, child care, and transportation. It is time to reward working families with living wages. The legislation we are proposing would provide a modest 50-cent per hour increase this year, with an additional 50-cent increase in 2000, bringing the wage level to $6.15 per hour. More than 10 million people would be helped by a raise in the minimum wage--an increase of more than $2,000 per year for a full-time worker. To put things in context, nearly three quarters of minimum wage earners are adults and 40 percent are the sole breadwinners for their families. Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women, and 82 percent of all minimum wage earners work more than 20 hours per week. Since the last minimum wage increase, our nation's economy has continued to grow steadily. In my home State of Connecticut, members of the State legislature saw the wisdom of increasing the minimum wage, and last year enacted a two-step minimum wage increase. The current level is now $5.65, and effective January 1, 2000, the wage will again increase to $6.15 an hour. Connecticut's unemployment rate is 3.8 percent and almost 60,000 new jobs were created in the last two years. The State is close to recovering nearly all of the 156,000 jobs lost during the recession that hit in the early 1990's. I hope that Congress will follow Connecticut's lead and pass a similar law before the year is through. Congress should take a stand for millions of working Americans and raise the minimum wage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. (Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security) Act, legislation designed to improve the quality, affordability and accessibility of child care in America. Any member who spent time in his or her state over the past two months enters the 106th Congress knowing with certainty that no issue weighs more heavily on the minds of parents in this country than how their children are cared for. Parents worry that they can't afford to take time away from work to be with their children. When they must work, they worry that the child care they need will be unavailable, unaffordable or unsafe. It's a constant, daily struggle. The challenge before us is straightforward: to do a better job of supporting families in the choices they make about the care of their children. Providing support for families' choices does not require inventing a slew of new programs. We have programs already in existence that work and that enjoy bipartisan support. Our goal should be to build on the foundation we've already laid with programs like the Child Care and Development Block Grant, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and with targeted tax credits that help working families defray the costs of raising children. But, providing real support does require making sure that adequate resources are there when families need them. And that's where we're falling short. Mr. President, this is the reality in communities across the country: Because of a lack of funding, the Child Care and Development Block Grant serve only 1 out of 10 eligible children. In two-thirds of our states, families earning $25,000 make too much to be eligible for any assistance through the block grant. Ironically, these same families earn too little and have too little tax liability to take full advantage of the non-refundable Dependent Care Tax Credit. What kind of choices do those families have when full-day child care costs $4,000 to $10,000 per year--equal to the cost of college tuition plus room and board at many public universities? Many parents are dismayed to learn that some kinds of care are unavailable at any cost. For example, care for infants is virtually non-existent in many communities. And the problem is only getting worse. The GAO estimates that by the time the 50 percent welfare to work participation goal is reached in 2002, 88 percent of parents with infants needing child care will not be able to find it. This corresponds to 24,000 young children, in the city of Chicago alone, without child care. What choices will those parents have? We know conclusively that the experiences in the first months and years of children's lives play a significant role in shaping their future. Many parents would prefer to be able to stay home with their children during that critical time, but are unable to shoulder the financial burden of losing an income. What choices are we offering those families? Options are also limited for parents of school-age children. Five million children go unsupervised each day between the hours of 3 and 6 pm. Not coincidentally, these are the hours when juvenile crime peaks and when children are at an increased risk of being victims of crimes themselves. We also know that eighth-graders left home alone after school report greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those who are in adult-supervised settings. What kind of choices do parents have when more than half of schools offer no afterschool programs? Even when families can find affordable care, they still must worry about whether that care will be safe. Studies have found that only one in seven child care centers provides care that promotes healthy development. Child care at one in eight centers actually threatens children's health and safety. And infants and toddlers--our youngest and most vulnerable children--fare the worst. Almost half of infant and toddler care endangers health and safety. What kind of choices are we offering parents who must work but want their children to be in safe and loving environments? I know that some will argue that child care is a private problem and one that families should be left to solve on their own. If so, then we would be treating child care very differently than we do other essential children's needs, like education and health care. For example, we don't expect families to bear the financial costs of educating their children alone. In addition to providing public elementary and secondary schools, we pick up three-quarters of the costs of educating a student at a public university. And we don't expect families to shoulder the burden of providing health care for their children alone. Two-thirds of families have that expense subsidized through their employers or through public programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. We as a nation have an interest in well-educated and healthy children. And so, we accept that the federal government, states and employers play a role in getting us to these laudable goals--of public education and health. I believe that there is just as compelling a national interest in making sure our children are safe and well-cared for. That is why I rise today to offer a plan that will broadly improve the ability of families to make better choices when it comes to our children's care. There are seven main parts to our initiative: First, our bill would provide an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years through the Child Care and Development Block Grant to increase the amount of child care subsidies available to working families. This investment will double the number of children served by the block grant to 2 million by 2004. Second, this legislation will provide $2 billion over 5 years to encourage states to invest in activities known to produce significant improvements in the quality of child care. For example, we will help states to: bring provider-child ratios to nationally recommended levels; improve the enforcement of quality standards by conducting unannounced inspections; conduct background checks on child care providers; improve the compensation, education and training of child care providers; educate parents how to find good quality child care; and ensure that high quality child care is available to children with disabilities. In addition, this bill would involve communities in improving the quality of early childhood development by providing $2.5 billion over 5 years in grants to local collaboratives to strengthen services for young children. The bill would also encourage dedicated child care providers to stay in the profession by helping with the repayment of educational loans. This initiative would provide $2 billion over 5 years to increase the supply and quality of school-age care through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. In addition, we would encourage more schools to keep their doors open beyond the regular school day by expanding the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program to $600 million in FY 2000. This bill would also expand the existing Dependent Care Tax Credit for families earning under $60,000 and index the credit for inflation to help it keep pace with rising child care costs. We would also make the credit refundable so that families with little or no tax liability (those making under $30,000) can receive assistance with child care expenses. This legislation would also provide new assistance for families who make the difficult choice to forgo a second income or career and to stay at home with their children. Stay-at-home parents with children under the age of 1 could claim up to $540 through an expansion of the existing Dependent Care Tax Credit. This new credit would also be made refundable--to allow stay-at-home parents earning under $30,000 to benefit. This bill would create a new discretionary program of competitive ``challenge grants'' in which communities who generate funds from the private sector would be eligible for matched federal grants to improve the availability and quality of child care on a community-wide basis. This program would be authorized at $400 million over 5 years. We would provide a new tax incentive to open high quality, on-site child care centers or to assist their employees in finding and paying for child care off-site. Finally, we would also ensure that the federal government leads by example in providing its workers only the highest quality child care. Many people would be surprised to hear that federal child care facilities are currently exempted from state quality regulations. In this bill we require that all federal child care centers meet all state licensing standards. Mr. President, this is a comprehensive package--it is a bold agenda-- but it is not pie in the sky. We can and must do this for America's families. I was disappointed, but not disheartened, about the lack of progress made on this front last year, when I introduced similar legislation. But I know that all good things take time. I fought for more than 3 years to see the enactment of the original Child Care and Development Block Grant and 8 years to see the signing of the Family and Medical Leave Act. But, I'm not looking to set any new endurance records with this legislation. I am hopeful that this year, we can work together again to give families the resources they need to better care for their children. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record. I would also ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Children's Defense Fund and the National Women's Law Center be included in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier this year, this body mourned the passing of a former colleague and a political pioneer: Terry Sanford of North Carolina. Terry Sanford served honorably in the Senate from 1987 to 1993, but he is primarily remembered as the progressive Governor who guided the state of North Carolina from the days of segregation into the modern era of economic prosperity and racial tolerance. Elected in 1960, four years before the Civil Rights Act, Terry Sanford aggressively pursued an agenda of racial equality, creating a biracial panel to work on solutions to end job discrimination against blacks. But as crucial as desegregation was to North Carolina's future, Terry Sanford realized that it would have a limited impact without investments in education. As much as any figure in modern American politics, Terry Sanford recognized that education was the key to opportunity and economic growth in this country. He established North Carolina's community college system, invested heavily in the public schools, founded the North Carolina School for the Arts, and set up a school for the state's gifted students. He also promoted the use of the research facilities at the state's universities as the foundation of Research Triangle Park, which has become one of the nation's leading hubs of high-tech economic activity. After leaving the Governor's office, he went on to serve as the President of Duke University for 16 years, and he led this university to national prominence. Many people have expressed their admiration for Terry Sanford in this chamber and in publications across the country, and, in my opinion, one of the most eloquent pieces honoring this Southern statesman actually appeared in a newspaper in Connecticut. Keith C. Burris of The Journal- Inquirer did an excellent job of capturing the essence of this great man who forever changed the face of his state and our nation. His piece reminded me how fortunate I was to serve with Terry Sanford and to call him a friend. I ask that an article by Mr. Burris be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Journal Inquirer, May 1, 1998] Terry Sanford, Sower and Builder (By Keith C. Burris) Terry Sanford died last week at the age of 80. The New York Times and other august publications noted his extraordinary accomplishments: a Bronze Star and Purple Heart for paratrooping into the Battle of the Bulge during World War II; governor of North Carolina from 1961 to 1965; president of Duke University from 1969 to 1985; and U.S. senator from North Carolina from 1986 to 1992. But none of these facts or titles quite captures the greatness or the goodness of the man. The greatness of the man was that, finding himself at odds with the folkways of his homeland, he rose above them and then changed them. It's a lot easier simply to be a rebel. The goodness of Terry Sanford was that he found a way to contribute wherever he was. He accepted the setbacks of his life not only with grace but with valor. When one door shut, he opened another, walked in, and started to build something. It's a whole lot easier to sit on your resume and stew on your defeats. Sanford was a proud man and he had a politician's memory. But his mind and his heart were as expansive as a Carolina mountain vista. No matter what life dealt him, he kept on trying to improve his state, region, and country. As he fought his last battle--with cancer--Terry Sanford was the principal fund-raiser for a new center for the arts in the North Carolina ``research triangle,'' the North Carolina Performing Arts Institute. He spent his last days on his latest dream. His colleagues say they will need two healthy men to match the dying man's energy. Terry Sanford's first dream was Martin Luther King's: equal opportunity, an end to Jim Crow, and an integrated society where everyone is judged by the ``content of his character.'' In 1960 Sanford ran for governor of North Carolina on a platform of racial progress and economic opportunity, making good schools the core of his message. In 1998, big deal. But in 1960, almost suicidal. This was before the great crusades of King and the landmark civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965. Just to make things a little more interesting, Sanford also endorsed John F. Kennedy for president in 1960. Many people, in many parts of America, knew one thing about Kennedy, and it wasn't that he was young or liberal or rich; it was that he was Roman Catholic. Endorsing Kennedy was not something that would help Sanford carry the mountain towns. But he won. And good and bad came of it. The good was that Sanford was a superb governor--judged one of the 10 best in the century by the people who vote on these things up at Harvard. Those who are brave, and smart, and prophetic in politics are seldom the ones who can keep the streets clean too. But Sanford was the exception. As governor he was efficient, effective, and innovative. He integrated the parks; he built a community college system; he founded the North Carolina School for the Arts in Winston-Salem and the Governor's School for Gifted Students; he started his own war on poverty before LBJ did. As Albert Hunt has written, Sanford preached states' responsibilities when other governors preached states' rights. And while George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, Terry Sanford built schoolhouses. He also raised taxes. And for this, as well as his Southern liberalism, Sanford was hated by many North Carolinians for many years. Forced to leave office by a term limit in 1965, he was not elected to anything again in North Carolina for more than 20 years. Sanford paid a huge price for his political courage. But in the long run he reaped a proud harvest. In many ways Sanford cut the path for the modern North Carolina: the great schools and universities, the research base, the medical schools, the educated and skilled work force, the social cohesion and tolerance. creating the new south Someday someone will write the modern version of W.J. Cash's classic ``The Mind of the South'' and call it something like ``The Rise of the New South.'' The New South is not all sweetness and light. But it has provided economic opportunity and education for the many, which Connecticut cannot always say about itself, and it is the most racially integrated and harmonious region of the nation. Sanford and a few other progressive Southern governors-- like Leroy Collins of Florids--also paved the way for the New South governors who changed the face of American politics-- governors like Jim Hunt, Lawton Chiles, Richard Riley, Douglas Wilder, and Zel Miller. And two others: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. What a shame that Sanford did not make it to the White House--he tired in 1972 and 1976--instead of the president who was crippled by his sense of morality and the president who is crippled by his lack of morality. In 1972 Terry Sanford's fellow Democrats in North Carolina voted not for him but for George Wallace in their presidential primary. The mark of the Southern progressive governor was and is trashing ideology to do what works; fiscal sanity; and emphasis on education. Two generations of these governors, starting with Sanford, have moved the center of the Democratic Party and saved it from national extinction. And they have pushed politics, especially Democratic politics, away from philosophy to nuts and bolts. Not all of that has been good either. But when you project Sanford's programs and positions in the 1960s into the 1990s, you see that he was the prototype. His accomplishment as president of Duke was no less important. Higher learning is the Southern liberal's core value. And just as Sanford was a precursor for others, Frank Porter Graham was Sanford before Sanford. Graham led a generation of Carolina progressives and had mixed success at the polls. But his base and great accomplishment was the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Graham made it first-rate. Sanford, who was a Chapel Hill graduate, in turn made Duke first-rate. He did it through sheer energy and ambition: hiring the best he could find; raising the money to afford those hires; eliminating quotas; building new programs, departments, and facilities; and bringing gifted and controversial thinkers and writers to the campus for long and short visits. Sanford was a big dreamer, but a practical one. He wanted one of the state's best schools to be one of the nation's best. And the dream came true. Today Duke is rated one of the nation's top 10. Chapel Hill, only a few miles away, is too. Their rivalry has not been bad for North Carolina. the southern humanist It is hard for Northerners and children of the 1990s to comprehend the Southern liberal of the 1930s, 40s and 50s. The Southern liberal had to have physical and moral courage. He had to stay focused. He did not have the luxury of class wars, race wars, rights talk that extends to trees and rocks, and ideological fratricide. Properly, he is not called a liberal or a progressive at all but a humanist. Terry Sanford was the great Southern humanist of his generation in politics. The Southern humanist never trivialized himself like the Northern liberal, for two reasons. First, he was always so much the underdog that he had to stay attuned to people who didn't think a bit like him. This kept the Southern humanist humble. Second, Southern humanism was based in gospel- inspired neighborliness, as opposed to fads, modernism, and, ultimately, rationalism. It is also hard for the Northerner and the modern to understand a guy like Sanford. What made him go? It wasn't sheer ambition, because he did so much that hurt his career and so much that was irrelevant to it. More than one political reporter remarked that Sanford lacked the ``killer instinct'' that Carter possessed and Clinton possesses in spades. The answer is that Sanford was a citizen--a public man in the ancient Greek sense. Education and politics were one to him; public life was citizenship, and it came before and after office. It lasted all your life. This sense of mission and duty is a much deeper thing than the vanity that seeks and clings to office--any office--like life's blood. For a politician Sanford was wonderfully stoical. When he ran for the Senate I was working in Winston-Salem as an editorial writer. He came in for an endorsement interview with the editorial board (an endorsement he did not receive) and answered our questions for an hour or so. I thought him every inch a senator--in fact, a president. But I was also impressed by his lack of pretense. Another writer asked him, as he was about to go: ``Governor, aren't you taking a big risk? If you lose, you go out as a loser and you'll be remembered as a loser.'' Sanford shrugged and smiled and skipped a beat as if considering self-censoring and dismissing it. And then he said: ``So what? Most folks don't remember you, win or lose. You're just an old politician. . . . People don't remember what little good I did. And that's fine. But I do, and I take my satisfaction there.'' the instinct to serve Sanford did go out with a loss. His disastrous reelection campaign for the Senate was sunk by a long hospital stay and a roguish opponent--a former Democrat and Sanford protege-- who ran on the brave slogan that Sanford was too sick to campaign. I wrote to Sanford after that loss--just a one-liner to say I was sorry. To my surprise he wrote back in his own hand. He said that his defeat might be for the best. For now he'd be home in North Carolina, he said, and could see his grandchildren, do some teaching, and maybe pursue some projects for the state--like the arts institute. Yes, he did lack the killer instinct. Terry Sanford has the serving instinct. It helped him to change a state, a region, and a nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we approach the end of another Congress, we bid farewell to those Senators who will not be returning in January. Today I wish to say farewell to a good friend and one of the most honorable and respected members of this body--Dale Bumpers. Dale Bumpers is the epitome of what a Senator should be. He entered public service because he believed that it was a noble profession, and throughout his political career he has performed his duties with the highest levels of integrity and decency. He has always been guided by his heart and his mind, not by any polls. He almost seems like a character from a Frank Capra film. He was a World War II veteran from a small town who attended college and law school on the G.I. Bill. After practicing law for 20 years in his home town, he earned a reputation as a political giant-killer on his way to the Governor's mansion and eventually the Senate. Even his home address seems straight out of Hollywood. Believe it or not, he actually lives on a street named Honesty Way. Oftentimes when you're watching Dale Bumpers speak from the Senate floor, you can't help but think of the character made famous by Jimmy Stewart--Senator Jefferson Smith--whose political philosophy was ``the only causes worth fighting for are lost causes,'' and whose most famous line was, ``Either I'm dead right, or I'm crazy.'' As Senator Bumpers said just the other day on this floor, he's probably fought more losing battles than any other Senator. I can picture Senator Bumpers right now, speaking from the heart on some issue about which he cares very deeply. He knows that he's right, but whatever he says, he can't seem to sway a majority of his colleagues. But no matter what, he won't give up. He won't back down. And in 18 years of serving with Dale Bumpers, I can honestly say that I never saw him waver in his beliefs or back down from a good, honest debate. Two years ago, when Dale Bumpers was speaking on the retirement of his former colleague from Arkansas, David Pryor, he said, and I quote, ``I am not a terribly effective legislator because I have a very difficult time compromising. I have strong beliefs, and sometimes compromise is just out of the question for me.'' Maybe there is some truth to that statement. Maybe Dale Bumpers could have scored a few more political victories if he had been more willing to compromise. But I think that my friend from Arkansas is being a little hard on himself in his self-assessment. I think that he is an excellent legislator, and it was his candor and his devotion to his convictions that made him effective. Obviously, compromise is often essential to getting things done around here. But equally essential is having people around here who are passionate about issues and willing to fight for their beliefs in the face of opposition. Dale Bumpers is not only thought of highly by his colleagues, but I think that everyone in the entire Senate family thinks fondly of this man. And I know for a fact that many members of my staff share a deep admiration for Senator Bumpers. The past few weeks, there has actually been a ``Dale Bumpers watch'' in the L.A. room in my office, much like the Mark McGwire watch that captivated the country during the baseball season. Every time Senator Bumpers has come to the floor, hands have pulled back from keyboards and the volumes on television sets have been turned up, as my staffers have watched and wondered if this would be the last time that Dale Bumpers will speak on the Senate floor. I only hope that they were watching C-SPAN on the afternoon of Saturday, October 10. Of course, Dale Bumpers will most likely be remembered for his unsurpassed oratory skills. One thing that made our friend from Arkansas such an effective speaker was that his positions were always based on common sense. Whether or not you agreed with Dale Bumpers, you could always understand the logic behind his argument. But what set him apart was his passion. Not many people can get excited over a 120 year- old mining law, but Dale Bumpers could speak on this issue and convince you that this was the defining issue of the decade. I only regret that he was never elected Majority Leader so that he may one day come back to speak as a part of the Leaders' Speaker Series. Maybe we can come up with a waiver provision to let certain colleagues who were never Majority Leader speak--and call it the ``Bumpers Rule.'' For Dale Bumpers the final judgement on the merit of his arguments will not be rendered by the yeas and nays of his colleagues. It will rather be rendered by the illuminating perspective of time. And I have little doubt that time will rule in favor of the Senator from Arkansas. Just the other day, Senator Bumpers was on the floor talking about a speech he gave about the ozone layer in the mid 1970s. Most of his statements were considered alarmist at the time, but more than a decade later, an exhaustive study by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that everything he said has in fact been proven true. And I am confident that time will ultimately prove that Dale Bumpers was right far more often than he was wrong. I also think that time will reveal that our friend from Arkansas was one of the most capable, intelligent, and principled legislators that this body has ever known. I can honestly say that it has been an honor to serve alongside Dale Bumpers for the past 18 years. I will truly miss his friendship, and I wish him and his wife Betty only the best in all their future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I've been fortunate to be a member of the United States Senate for nearly 18 years, and I have seen a lot of members come and go. But I must admit that I have never seen anyone make a more dramatic exit than our colleague from Ohio. Then again, who in this Chamber would expect anything less? John Glenn is a man who has served his nation as a Marine fighter pilot in World War II and Korea, flying a total of 149 combat missions. He has served as a test pilot in the first era of supersonic jets--an occupation where attending a colleague's funeral was as common as a new speed record. Then of course, John Glenn became a part of our national consciousness when he was chosen to be one of the seven Mercury Astronauts. As much as any event since World War II, his historic flight aboard Friendship 7 on February 20, 1962 united this Nation and made us believe that there are no limits on what we as humans and as Americans can accomplish. For the past 24 years, John Glenn has served the people of Ohio and this country as a United States Senator. He has performed his duties with an uncommon grace and dignity. He is a credit to this institution and I am proud to call him a friend. And now, on October 29th, in perhaps his last act as a U.S. Senator, John Glenn will return to the heavens aboard the space shuttle Discovery, becoming the oldest man to ever travel in outer space. It is very common in this body to feel emotions of deep admiration and respect for one's colleagues, but John Glenn is the rare Senator who inspires feelings of sheer awe. I was trying to think of what would be an appropriate way to pay tribute to my friend from Ohio, and to put into perspective how remarkable and inspiring is his impending voyage aboard Discovery. And I was reminded of the famous farewell of another American hero to whom Senator Glenn is linked historically. I'm sure all of my colleagues remember Ted Williams--and those of us from New England remember him quite fondly. The Boston Red Sox left- fielder is considered by many to be the greatest hitter who ever lived. The last man to ever hit .400 and the winner of two Triple Crowns, Ted Williams' ability to hit for both power and average has never been matched. One fact most people don't know about Ted Williams is that he served in the same squadron with John Glenn during the Korean War. Our friend from Ohio was the squadron commander, and the Mr. Williams was his wing-man. People talk about Ruth and Gehrig as the best one-two punch in history, but John Glenn and Ted Williams isn't half bad. As the story is told, when Ted Williams went to Korea, he knew he would be going into combat. Therefore, he was going to pick the best person to fly alongside him. He had been told that John Glenn was one of the best test pilots in the world, so he sought out our colleague in the reception center before shipping out. And while Ted Williams sought out John Glenn, in tapping Ted Williams to be his wing-man, John Glenn was saying that Williams was the best and sharpest pilot he had in his squadron. Ted Williams had many great moments on the baseball diamond, but no moment more perfectly encapsulates his career than his last major league at-bat on September 28, 1960. And as John Glenn prepares for his Discovery mission, I cannot help but be reminded of that crisp autumn afternoon at Fenway Park. The game was meaningless in the standings, with the Red Sox limping to the end of their worst season in 27 years. But the day was significant for it was the last time that Hub fans would ever get a glimpse of Number Nine's classic swing. After going 0 for 2 with two fly outs and a walk, Ted Williams came to the plate in the bottom of the eighth inning for what was sure to be his last at-bat. Writer John Updike was at the game, and his accounts of that day are considered scripture by baseball fans everywhere. As Updike wrote: ``Understand that we were a crowd of rational people. We knew that a home run cannot be produced at will; the right pitch must be perfectly met and luck must ride with the ball. Three innings before, we had seen a brave effort fail. The air was soggy, the season was exhausted. Nevertheless, there will always lurk, around the corner in a pocket of our knowledge of the odds, an indefensible hope, and this was one of the times, which you now and then find in sports, when a density of expectation hangs in the air and plucks an event out of the future.'' As many of my colleagues already know, Ted Williams did not disappoint. In his final swing, he hit a one-one pitch that soared majestically through the air before disappearing into the right-field bullpen. As John Updike wrote, ``Ted Williams' last word had been so exquisitely chosen, such a perfect fusion of expectation, intention, and execution.'' Well, I feel that Senator John Glenn's final word has been just as exquisitely chosen. Here is a man whose career of service to this country is unparalleled. Taken separately, his service as a Marine pilot, as an astronaut, and as a Senator are extraordinary. Put together, they are mythic. Thirty-six years ago, John Glenn convinced a nation that there are no limits to human potential. At the end of this month, he will once more extend the envelope of human accomplishment. John Glenn's mission on the Discovery is his home run in his last at bat. I only wish that they could find a seat on the Discovery for John Updike. Ted Williams' last home run reminds me of John Glenn, not simply because it shows that both men know how to go out in style. It does so because the emotions that were stirred in this fabled at-bat are the very same emotions that have made John Glenn an American hero. It is that feeling of indefensible hope, our desire to believe in something that is bigger than ourselves. Simply put, it is our belief in heroes. Life will always be full of disappointment and tribulations. But it helps us to conquer the everyday battles in our own lives when we see someone whom we admire accomplish great things. And we cheer for those persons, because in them, we see the best in ourselves. By believing in them, we believe in ourselves. When you read John Updike's description of the mood in Fenway Park before that last at bat, it could just as easily be a description of the mood in the Grandstands watching Senator Glenn's launch from Cape Canaveral later this month, or in every American living room when John Glenn boarded Friendship 7 thirty-six years ago. Reason insists that we be practical. That we accept our limitations. Yet we hold out hope that we can achieve things once unimaginable, that we can do better. And John Glenn has shown us time and again, as an astronaut, as a test pilot, as a Marine, and as a Senator that we can do better. Surprisingly, the fact that John Glenn and Ted Williams served together in Korea remained largely a secret until 10 years ago, when Senator Glenn appeared at a reception to honor Ted Williams on his 70th birthday. At the end of the evening, Ted Williams, a man not known for lavishing praise on others, spoke about his former commander. He said, and I quote: ``I was so happy and proud of the fact that I knew him. John Glenn is an extraordinarily talented, brave hero. He's a hell of a man. It's just too bad that he's a Democrat.'' When Ted Williams is singing your praises, you must be doing something right, and aside from his comments about Senator Glenn's politics, I couldn't agree more with Mr. Williams' statement. What we seem to forget about Senator Glenn's departure is that, while he is going into space at the end of the month, he is also coming back. I understand that he plans to set up an institute at Ohio State to encourage young people to become involved in politics and public service. In today's climate, it may be harder to turn young people on to politics than it was to put a man into orbit in 1962. But as a public servant, I cannot imagine a better advocate for the profession of public service than John Glenn. He reminds all of us, young and old, that there is honor in service to others and to your country. While I am certain that he will keep busy, I hope that he and Annie will have a chance to relax and enjoy his retirement. They have certainly earned it. So as I bid my friend farewell and good luck in his future years, and in particular his mission, I will repeat those words made famous by Scott Carpenter 37 years ago: ``Godspeed, John Glenn.''