Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I understand that bill No. S. 754 introduced earlier today by Senator Edwards is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. ENZI. I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. This amendment, offered by myself, Senator Grassley, Senator Thomas, and now Senator Conrad, is a sense of the Senate that resolves that any consideration of reform of Federal crop insurance and risk management programs should include the needs of livestock producers as well. The livestock industry has very few risk management tools available to manage the short- and long-term impacts of weather-related and natural disaster situations. They do not have an insurance program to help guard against losses. In fact, livestock producers are prohibited by law from participating in USDA's Crop Insurance Program. That prohibition must be removed. We must devote our resources to finding a rational approach to risk management that will eliminate the need for ranchers and farmers to ask Congress each year for disaster assistance. Any program offered to the agricultural producers should cover them in the event of any crop or livestock losses due to excessive rain and snow, wind, drought, and even insect infestation. We need a program that is actuarially sound. The livestock industry is comprised of smart, hardworking businessmen who constantly operate at the whims of Mother Nature. They are not looking for a Government handout. They simply want to be given the opportunity to better manage the risks they face in trying to get their cattle and sheep to market. We promised our ranchers help, but we have not delivered. This amendment is a good first step. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back any time that I have. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I understand Senator Thompson has an amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration en bloc of the following bills reported by the Energy Committee: S. 278, Calendar No. 41; S. 291, Calendar No. 46; S. 292, Calendar No. 47; S. 293, Calendar No. 42; S. 243, Calendar No. 45; S. 334, Calendar No. 63; S. 356, Calendar No. 48; S. 366, Calendar No. 49; S. 382, Calendar No. 50; S. 422, Calendar No. 65; H.R. 171, Calendar No. 51; and, H.R. 193, Calendar No. 52.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment numbered 250 to S. 293, which is at the desk, be agreed to, and the amendment numbered 251 to S. 243 be agreed to, any committee amendments where applicable be agreed to, the bills then be considered read the third time and passed, as amended, if amended, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of these bills appear in the Record with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaty on today's Executive Calendar: No. 1. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been passed through its various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, and declarations be considered agreed to; that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record. I further ask unanimous consent that when the resolution of ratification is voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following disposition of the treaty the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI. I ask for a division vote on the resolution of ratification.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be allowed further consideration, until April 26, 1999, of the nomination of David Williams to be the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. I further ask unanimous consent that if the nomination is not reported by that date, the nomination be automatically discharged and placed on the calendar.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment, under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 23, until 12 noon, Monday, April 12. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 23 following the remarks of Senator Baucus.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 6 minutes on this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the Ashcroft-Brownback amendment voicing opposition to the President's plan of having the Federal Government invest our Social Security funds in the stock market. We all understand and, hopefully, agree that, if left unchanged, the future of Social Security is in jeopardy, as the program will begin running deficits in 2013 when 71 million baby boomers begin collecting retirement benefits. We know the number of retirees will double between 2008 and 2018, narrowing the ratio of workers to beneficiaries to less than 3-to-1. I point out that in 1950 there were 16 workers for every single beneficiary. We all know that all trust funds, if they even exist, will be completely exhausted in 2032. We have a responsibility to save this program from a fate that everyone agrees will happen without change. The Ashcroft-Brownback amendment is a solid first step in assuring the American people that Congress is committed to fixing this problem, while preempting the President's ``Big Brother'' philosophy. I am deeply concerned by the message the President is sending to the American people. The very reason Social Security has a solvency problem is that it is a federally administered program with IOUs that are disguised as real trust funds. The President wants to right a wrong with another wrong. Not only has he failed to provide Congress with actual reform legislation, the Social Security Administration has neglected its responsibility to make legislative recommendations to Congress as well. To think that the President now wants to embrace the benefits of private aggregate investment by playing the stock market and have Government select the winners and the losers is simply bad policy. Last week, I spent 13 hours in executive session in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee marking up S. 326, the Patients' Bill of Rights. We debated a sizable number of amendments. Members of the committee may have substantially disagreed on a majority of these amendments, but there was no conflict regarding individual control and choice over one's health care. It is a fundamental premise that respects each person's right to exert some control over decisions involving their own health. During that debate, several of my Democratic colleagues touted patient control and choice. Why, then, why isn't that choice and control being extended to Social Security? Is a person's health care more sensitive or politically appealing than that person's Social Security? I have trouble separating the two. However, the President seems to have found a way to advocate consumer control and choice in health care while denying individuals that same right with their Social Security. The lack of consistency in the President's message is disturbing. If the President really believes in personal control and choice, he should abandon the notion of federal government investment of America's retirement on the stock market and support personal investment accounts. That's choice. That's giving Americans some say in this debate. Taxpayers don't need big brother to make this decision nor do they want it to. But the President's plan would authorize the federal government to invest hard-earned payroll tax dollars on the stock market. No personal control, choice or say by the individual. The President needs to stop polling and start listening to what the majority of Americans want. The Ashcroft/Brownback amendment is an insurance policy for the American people. It insures them that their Social Security will not be invested and managed by the federal government--an idea that's been condemned by Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan; Comptroller General for the General Accounting Office, David Walker; and, Congressional Budget Office Director Dan Crippen--all three are federal agency heads. Is the President listening to them? How about the labor community? I received a letter signed by 10 prominent labor unions--including the Teamsters, United Workers of America, United Steel Workers as well as the United Mine Workers indicating their opposition of ``the President's proposal to allow the government itself to invest part of the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses in corporate stocks and bonds.'' Is the President listening to them? While serving on the Senate Labor Committee, I rarely see organized labor and the business community agree. This issue, however, is one exception. The Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, which the National Association of Manufacturers founded last year, strongly criticized President Clinton's plan to have the government manage the investment of Social Security trust funds in the stock market. According to NAM, ``government ownership--in other words, control of private enterprise--is a mockery of the principles on which this country is founded.'' A majority of opinions agree that the President's message is flawed and that it constitutes bad policy. We often have trouble arriving at a consensus in the Senate. But since federal agency heads, the labor community and the business community share the same concern, this Administration and the Senate have a duty to listen. I strongly support the Ashcroft/Brownback amendment and I'm pleased to be an original cosponsor. It shows that the Senate isn't turning a blind eye on this important policy decision. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce this amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill with my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions. This amendment is also cosponsored by Senator Grams of Minnesota, Senator Bryan, Senator Lugar, Senator Reid, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Brownback. This amendment has one very important purpose: to ensure that the rights of this Congress and all fifty states are not trampled on by an unelected Cabinet official. The amendment is simple and straightforward. It extends the current moratorium on the Secretary of the Interior's ability to finalize the rules that were published on January 22d, 1998 until eight months after Congress receives the report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Since the Commission is due to deliver its report to Congress no later than June 20th of this year, this moratorium would give Congress until as late as next February to consider the findings and advice of the commission we established to study the impact of gambling. This amendment also prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from approving any tribal-state gambling agreement which has not first been approved by the tribe and the state in question during this moratorium. Mr. President, it is imperative that the current moratorium, which expires on March 31st, be extended. If it is not extended and the rules in question are finalized, the Secretary of the Interior would have the ability to bypass all fifty state governments in approving casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. Mr. President, this is the fourth time in two years the Senate has had to deal with this issue of Indian gambling, and I regret that an amendment is once again necessary on this year's Supplemental Appropriations bill. However, I believe it is imperative that Congress considers the recommendations of our own commission on gambling before allowing an unelected Cabinet official to make a major policy change in the area of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. For the last two years, I have offered amendments to the Interior appropriations bills prohibiting Secretary Babbitt from approving any new tribal-state gambling compacts that had not first been approved by the State in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Both of those amendments passed the Senate on voice votes. Both of these amendments were agreed to by the House in Conference. Only at the eleventh hour during negotiations with the White House was the length of the moratorium on last year's bill shortened to 6 months. The message we sent to the Interior Department through these amendments was clear. Congress does not believe it is appropriate for the Secretary of the Interior to bypass Congress and the states in an issue as important as whether or not casino gambling will be allowed within the state borders. Mr. President, for the past two years when we have debated this issue there have been lobbyists who have tried to paint this amendment as a Las Vegas protection bill. There are some lobbying groups that are trying that same tactic again this year. I want everyone to be perfectly clear on this point. This amendment is designed primarily for those states that do not allow gambling--particularly those that do not allow electronic gambling and especially those states that do not allow slot machines. The interest in this amendment from gambling states stems simply from these members sincere desire to have the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, enforced. Those states which have decided through their state legislatures or through the initiative process that they want casino gambling have also established regulations and procedures to monitor this activity. This amendment does not in any way minimize the serious need for proper enforcement of existing law. Mr. President, the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee has introduced legislation to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. His committee has scheduled a hearing later this month to listen to testimony from a number of the parties involved in this debate. I applaud the senior Senator from Colorado for providing this forum. He has offered to consider my thoughts and recommendations as the committee goes through the proper legislative process of considering changes to existing law, and I look forward to providing some thoughts I have on possible changes to IGRA. I believe this is the proper manner to consider major changes to existing law. The committee should hold hearings and listen to the views of all the major parties involved, report a bill, and have a debate in the Senate and House on what legislation is most appropriate to fix any problems with the current statute. In contrast with this process, Secretary Babbitt is attempting to bypass Congress and all fifty states with his proposed rules. This is a slap in the face to Congress, to all the State governments, and to all the Indian Tribes which have negotiated legitimate Tribal-State compacts with the States in which they are located. The Secretary's rules effectively punish those tribes which have played by the rules, and as such, will open the floodgates to an approval process based more on political influence than on proper negotiations between the states and the tribes. Who will be the winners under Secretary Babbitt's new regime? Will it be the Tribes that donate enough money to the right political party? In contrast, our amendment will make sure that the unelected Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, won't single- handedly change current law. This amendment will ensure that any change to IGRA is done the right way--legislatively. Actually, the timing of Secretary Babbitt's attempt to delegate himself new authority is rather ironic. Last March, Attorney General Janet Reno requested an independent counsel to investigate Secretary Babbitt's involvement in denying a tribal-state gambling license to an Indian Tribe in Wisconsin. Although we will have to wait for Independent Counsel Carol Elder Bruce to complete her investigation before any final conclusions can be drawn, it is evident that serious questions have been raised about Secretary Babbitt's judgment and objectivity in approving Indian gambling compacts. The very fact that Attorney General Reno believed there was specific and credible evidence to warrant an investigation should be sufficient to make this Congress hesitant to allow Secretary Babbitt to grant himself new trust powers that are designed to bypass the states in the area of Tribal-State gambling compacts. Moreover, this investigation should have taught us an important lesson: we in Congress should not allow Secretary Babbitt, or any other Secretary of the Interior, to usurp the rightful role of Congress and the states in addressing the difficult question of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. Mr. President, the Secretary has not given any indication in the 11 months since the independent counsel was appointed that he should be trusted with new, self-appointed trust responsibilities over Indian Tribes. On February 22d of this year, United States District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a contempt citation against Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, Kevin Gover, for disobeying the Court's orders in a trial in which the Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were sued for mismanagement of American Indian trust funds. In his contempt citation, Judge Lamberth stated, and I quote, The court is deeply disappointed that any litigant would fail to obey orders for production of documents, and then conceal and cover up that disobedience with outright false statements that the court then relied upon. But when that litigant is the federal government, the misconduct is even more troubling. I have never seen more egregious misconduct by the federal government. This conduct has raised such concern that both the Indian Affairs Committee and the Energy Committee have held hearings to call Secretary Babbitt to task for his mismanagement of these funds and his disregard for the rulings of a federal court. The Secretary's continued violation of his trust obligations to Indian Tribes should serve as a wake-up call to all of us in the Senate. This is not the time to allow the Secretary to delegate to himself new, unauthorized, powers. I should add that lobbyists for the various tribes and representatives in the White House have made it abundantly clear that Secretary Babbitt fully intends to finalize his proposed rules once the current moratorium expires. Our only way to stop this effort is to attach another amendment on this Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. This is a real emergency! Let me assure you, if Secretary Babbitt has his way, there will be no need for the Tribes to resolve problems involving gambling and IGRA in and with their States. I do believe that this issue could be resolved with hearings and a bill--actual legislation from Congress. But those hearings won't happen as long as the tribes anticipate the clout of a Secretary's rule that bypasses the states. Yes, the courts have ruled that current law--which was passed by Congress, not an appointed Secretary--gives an edge in the bargaining process to the States. But that process has worked. If there is a need to change that process, it should only be changed by a bill passed by Congress--not by rule or regulation. I must stress that if we do not maintain the status quo, there will never be any essential involvement by the states in the final decision of whether to allow casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. There will be no compromise reached. The Secretary will be given the right to bypass us, the Congress of the United States, and to run roughshod over the states. Again, I would like to stress that this amendment does not amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, but holds the status quo for another eleven months. Three years ago, Congress voted to establish a national commission to study the social and economic impacts of legalized gambling in the United States. One of the aspects the commission is currently analyzing is the impact of gambling on tribal communities. This commission is now winding down its work and is set to deliver its report to Congress no later than June 20th of this year. It is significant that this commission--the very commission Congress created for the purpose of studying gambling--sent a letter to Secretary Babbitt last year asking him not to go forward with his proposed rules. I think it would be wise of this body to follow the advice of the very commission we created to study the issue of legalized gambling. I want to emphasize again that we are the body that asked for this commission. We created the commission to look at all gambling. The American taxpayers are already paying for the study. The commission is nearing the end of its work. We need to let them finish. They have asked Secretary Babbitt not to make any changes while they do their work. My amendment would give them that time. The Judicial Branch has already preserved the integrity of current law. This amendment supports that. The President has twice approved my amendment, in the FY98 Interior appropriations bill, and in the FY `99 Omnibus Appropriations bill. I'm asking my colleagues to take the same ``non-action'' once again. The Committee on Indian Affairs must play a very important role here. They need to hold hearings and write legislation which specifically addresses this issue and then put it through the process. They will have time to do that if this amendment is agreed to. This amendment would support giving the Indian Affairs Committee and Congress, as a whole, time to develop an appropriate policy. Mr. President, the Enzi-Sessions amendment is strongly endorsed by the National Governor's Association. This amendment is also supported by the National Association of Attorneys General. We have also received a number of letters from individual state Attorneys General in support of this amendment. This amendment is also supported by the National League of Cities. I want to point out that this amendment does not affect any existing Tribal-State compacts. It does not, in any way, prevent states and Tribes from entering into compacts where both parties are willing to agree on class III gambling on Tribal lands within a state's borders. This amendment does ensure that all the stakeholders must be involved in the process--Congress, the Tribes, the States, and the Administration. Mr. President, a few short years ago, the big casinos thought Wyoming would be a good place to gamble. The casinos gambled on it. They spent a lot of money. The even got an initiative on the ballot. They spent a lot more money trying to get the initiative passed. I became the spokesman for the opposition. When we first got our meager organization together, the polls showed over 60 percent of the people were in favor of gambling. When the election was held casino gambling lost by over 62 percent--and it lost in every single county of our state. The 40 point swing in public opinion happened as people came to understand the issue and implications of casino gambling in Wyoming. That's a pretty solid message. We don't want casino gambling in Wyoming. The people who vote in my state have debated it and made their choice. Any federal bureaucracy that tries to force casino gambling on us will only inject animosity. Why did we have that decisive of a vote? We used a couple of our neighboring states to review the effects of their limited casino gambling. We found that a few people make an awful lot of money at the expense of everyone else. When casino gambling comes into a state, communities are changed forever. And everyone agrees there are costs to the state. There are material costs, with a need for new law enforcement and public services. Worse yet, there are social costs. And, not only is gambling addictive to some folks, but once it is instituted, the revenues can be addictive too. But I'm not here to debate the pros and cons of gambling. I am just trying to maintain the status quo so we can develop a legislative solution, rather than have a bureaucratic mandate. Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Society as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A state's law enforcement, social services, communities, and families are seriously impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian Tribal lands. Therefore, a state's popularly elected representatives should have a say in the decision about whether or not to allow casino gambling on Indian lands. This decision should not be made unilaterally by an unelected cabinet official. Passing the Enzi-Sessions amendment will keep all the interested parties at the bargaining table. By keeping all the parties at the table, the Indian Affairs Committee will have the time it needs to hear all the sides and work on legislation to fix any problems that exist in the current system. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the constitutional role of Congress--and for the rights of all fifty states--by supporting this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referenced be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, that would authorize a land exchange project called the Westside Irrigation District in Washakie and Big Horn Counties, Wyoming. This project has been many years in the making and is very important to many people in our state. It will provide a strong foundation for economic development in the area and it will provide a great opportunity for the public to obtain parcels of land that are now in private hands. The Westside District is a win-win project for everyone. It takes public land that is of low value for wildlife or aesthetic enjoyment and sells it to a non-profit district for conveyance into agricultural use. The District will pay fair market value for the surface land--not the mineral rights, which would remain federal property--and the Bureau of Land Management can then take the money and purchase other property that has a much higher value for public recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat, or cultural resources. The Bureau presently has very limited funds for this purpose and they could make good use of the money in the Worland District, which has a very complex land ownership mix. The description of the project is nearly 37,000 acres of shelf land near the Big Horn River. The proposal would make use of unallocated water rights to irrigate approximately 20,000 acres, leaving the remainder in conservation buffer zones, rights of way and wildlife habitat. The local economy, which has been hit very hard in recent years, would benefit from additional production of barley, corn, beans, hay and sugar beets. The anticipated benefit of a fully implemented project could be as many as 216 new jobs in the community. And this is in a county that only has about 4,500 working people--so there is a real positive impact expected. The district has been working diligently to address public questions that had been expressed early in the process. Some of these related to water quality, wildlife habitat, access, and land values. The Wyoming Game and Fish, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Westside District have been working out plans to mitigate each of the project's impacts. For example, the District will make use of overhead sprinkler systems to prevent runoff and will maintain vegetative buffer zones to capture any possible runoff due to natural events, such as snow melt. The District only plans to irrigate 20,000 acres of the total area, so the remaining 46 percent of the land will remain in native cover to provide habitat for wildlife and antelope winter range. The District will also help support additional staff with the Wyoming Game and Fish for mitigation assistance. And all existing rights of way and public access to surrounding public lands will be preserved. Mr. President, this bill is necessary because the BLM does not have the statutory authority to complete a sale of lands. Although they could conduct an exchange, the sheer size of this project prevented creating a reasonable exchange portfolio of other lands. This could have been accomplished with existing authority, but was prohibitively difficult to achieve in a single process. This legislation enables the BLM to take the money now, and then purchase various private lands as they become available--lands that are more suitable to our public objectives, such as wildlife and resource conservation and public enjoyment. This bill should be referred to the Senate Energy Committee and it is my hope that a hearing could be held and a report generated with enough time to complete action on the legislation this year. The people in Worland, Wyoming, have worked very hard to make this project happen. I would urge my colleagues to review the bill and support it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, that would authorize a land exchange project called the Westside Irrigation District in Washakie and Big Horn Counties, Wyoming. This project has been many years in the making and is very important to many people in our state. It will provide a strong foundation for economic development in the area and it will provide a great opportunity for the public to obtain parcels of land that are now in private hands. The Westside District is a win-win project for everyone. It takes public land that is of low value for wildlife or aesthetic enjoyment and sells it to a non-profit district for conveyance into agricultural use. The District will pay fair market value for the surface land--not the mineral rights, which would remain federal property--and the Bureau of Land Management can then take the money and purchase other property that has a much higher value for public recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat, or cultural resources. The Bureau presently has very limited funds for this purpose and they could make good use of the money in the Worland District, which has a very complex land ownership mix. The description of the project is nearly 37,000 acres of shelf land near the Big Horn River. The proposal would make use of unallocated water rights to irrigate approximately 20,000 acres, leaving the remainder in conservation buffer zones, rights of way and wildlife habitat. The local economy, which has been hit very hard in recent years, would benefit from additional production of barley, corn, beans, hay and sugar beets. The anticipated benefit of a fully implemented project could be as many as 216 new jobs in the community. And this is in a county that only has about 4,500 working people--so there is a real positive impact expected. The district has been working diligently to address public questions that had been expressed early in the process. Some of these related to water quality, wildlife habitat, access, and land values. The Wyoming Game and Fish, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Westside District have been working out plans to mitigate each of the project's impacts. For example, the District will make use of overhead sprinkler systems to prevent runoff and will maintain vegetative buffer zones to capture any possible runoff due to natural events, such as snow melt. The District only plans to irrigate 20,000 acres of the total area, so the remaining 46 percent of the land will remain in native cover to provide habitat for wildlife and antelope winter range. The District will also help support additional staff with the Wyoming Game and Fish for mitigation assistance. And all existing rights of way and public access to surrounding public lands will be preserved. Mr. President, this bill is necessary because the BLM does not have the statutory authority to complete a sale of lands. Although they could conduct an exchange, the sheer size of this project prevented creating a reasonable exchange portfolio of other lands. This could have been accomplished with existing authority, but was prohibitively difficult to achieve in a single process. This legislation enables the BLM to take the money now, and then purchase various private lands as they become available--lands that are more suitable to our public objectives, such as wildlife and resource conservation and public enjoyment. This bill should be referred to the Senate Energy Committee and it is my hope that a hearing could be held and a report generated with enough time to complete action on the legislation this year. The people in Worland, Wyoming, have worked very hard to make this project happen. I would urge my colleagues to review the bill and support it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. I particularly thank the Presiding Officer and congratulate him for bringing this education flexibility bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate, where it should have been passed rapidly. It came out of committee 17-1. That is bipartisan. The Presiding Officer worked hard and found the common ground for education. All during the trial, we talked about the need to get on with the country's business; and we did. We met mornings, up to the time of the trial, in committee meetings; and we passed bills out of committee. In fact, we passed more bills out of committee than passed the Senate in the entire first year I was here. We did the work of the country. We found common ground. We had a promise that common ground would be the way of the Senate for these next 2 years. Where did the common ground go? Seventeen to one; that is common ground. I hear expressions that we want to do things for education. Well, at this moment I know that for the Democrats education is merely a smokescreen, flash-in-the-pan politics. The Republicans are insisting on a politics of performance; the Democrats are utilizing a politics of the polls. The Republicans insist on promises kept; the Democrats insist on promises made, politics as usual. That is what gives politics a bad name: Promising things you do not intend to deliver on. We have been talking about paying for the promises we have already made. That is what IDEA is about. That is what we had extensive discussion about in the U.S. Senate last year when we figured out how special ed could be handled for this Nation. And we did find common ground. We also had this same sort of thing on the floor where, after the common ground, there were all kinds of wedge issues that were thrown in that did not have the detail done, that did not have the committee meetings held, that did not have the substance to follow through. Those were added and added and added, not successfully, but taking up the time of the Senate. We finally got IDEA passed, funding of special education. In that, though, we did not follow all the promises that were made. We provided 7 percent of the funding, not 40 percent of the funding for special education. But that does not mean we did not tell the States what to do. We did. We said: ``States, you've got to put up the rest of that. We are just making promises.'' But we said that every time there was an opportunity for additional funding, that additional funding would go to special education until we got it funded. Right now we are following up on those promises. People here are saying there is a lot of money that can be spent on education. And we are saying, OK, if there is a lot of money--and we are not agreeing that there is a lot of money--if there is a lot of money, fund what we promised first. School funding is one of the most important issues facing Wyoming and every other State. We are debating education flexibility, the Ed-Flex bill. This gives States more flexibility to use Federal money where the States and local districts need it most. State governments, local school boards, teachers and, yes, even the parents and kids need to be involved in setting the agenda for education. It should not be the Federal Government designating where every dollar is spent. You get the impression, from the discussion we are having here, that the Federal Government is the answer to education. Let me tell you what the Federal Government does. The Federal Government provides 7 percent of local school funding. You would think we were the answer. We are a piddling little 7 percent, because we have said: ``States, we've given you the mechanism to fund education. We want you to fund education. We insist that you fund education to provide education for every single kid, and there's a court system you can put that in if you don't think your kids are getting an equal break.'' And it is being utilized. The Federal Government only provides 7 percent of local funding, but we provide 50 percent of the paperwork. In order to get that 7 percent money, you are going to do 50 percent of your paperwork for the Federal Government. That paperwork burden requires the equivalent of 25,000 full-time people who work on paper, not on students. It takes six times as many employees to administer a Federal dollar as it does a State dollar. I want to tell you, paperwork won't teach kids. I have a daughter who is a seventh grade English teacher. She is a dedicated teacher. She earned her master's degree while she was teaching by going to classes evenings and weekends so she could do a better job with her kids. She understands class size. It fluctuates from year to year and from how many people move into her part of the city. She also understands IDEA funding and the way it will affect her job and the way it will affect kids in her classrooms. She understands that is something that has been debated and the details have been filled in. It is not like this idea of 100,000 new teachers, which sounds good. It is that flash-in-the-pan politics, the politics of promises. It doesn't have the details behind it. I suspect that every teacher out there in the classroom--including my daughter--when they find out that bill prohibits that money from being used for an increase in wages for them or even an increase in benefits, they would be livid. We have an obligation to the teachers who are already teaching out there, the ones who are doing a good job, the ones who in some instances have too big a class size. But their amendment prohibits them from getting a break. That is because we haven't had committee hearings on it. We just went right to the politics of the polls. We just went out there and said to the American people, we have studied the polls, we know you would like more teachers in the classroom, we know you would like to have your kids in smaller classes, and we will promise that. Now, we won't deliver it, but we will promise it. That is not how the Republicans here work. It was my understanding that we were going to have some common ground. And we found the common ground. I was encouraged. But I am not encouraged anymore. I watched the President crisscross the United States while we were having this trial. He crisscrossed the United States promising money: a billion here--nothing as small as a million--a billion here, a billion there, $4 billion there. I listened to his State of the Union Message while the trial was going on. My daughter called me the next day. She said, ``I had a kid show up to class today who had a couple of questions about the President's State of the Union Message. He brought the figures on the percentages that were used in the speech and he wanted to know if those didn't add up to 128 percent of the surplus?'' I tell you, the kid is good in math. The kid is good in listening. Yes, promises were made crisscrossing this country, promises that can't be kept, promises that the American people have said take care of Social Security, balance the budget, pay down the debt if you can, and if there is anything left over at all, give it back to us. But it is much fancier to put in the press that we are going to give away more money. It sounds great to have 100,000 new teachers in the classroom. One of the Members on the other side of the aisle recognized this morning that they have a second issue--that is more classrooms. He even pointed out why that was an issue. It is because if you put 100,000 teachers in there, you no longer have classroom space for the kids. It takes years of planning to be able to provide what they are talking about doing in a flash-in-the-pan moment for the press. That is not good business. That is not good legislation. That is not how we ought to be operating. At the beginning I gave the Senator from Tennessee the credit for this bill. Now, there are some Democrat cosponsors on this. There are a lot of them. But at the moment I am not giving them any credit. They are the ones who voted against cloture as though cloture stopped everything. Cloture ends our debate in 30 hours, 30 hours of talking about this important bill. That is a lot of time. Now it isn't time to demagog everything in the papers. It isn't time to do the flash-in-the- pan, promises-made politics about which we have been hearing. And it would wind up with a vote at the end where we would see if we were really in favor of education flexibility, less paperwork, so that teachers can spend more time in the classroom. I now think that they do not want that kind of a vote. They would rather make promises. The bill that we have before the Senate is extremely important. There are a lot of things in it that will actually improve the capability of the present teachers in the classroom. It won't restrict their pay. It won't keep them from getting additional benefits. But it will be funded because it doesn't require any funding. That is why we object to some of these measures being put on this bill at this moment. Yes, it is an opportunity to make the press. No, it is not the appropriate place to make the press. The more appropriate place is to have the hearings, fill in the details, get the agreement on the common ground. The more appropriate place might be appropriations. But just in case appropriations doesn't come up--oh, yeah, that is a requirement; we have to cover appropriations--at any rate, even if it weren't to come up, there is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is about funding. That is about elementary schools and secondary schools and how many teachers there are. Sounds like a more appropriate place to me. Sounds like the place where we ought to work for common ground instead of bringing it up without a hearing, bringing it up without the details pasted in. There is a lot of demagoging going on here about amendments. There have been some 15 amendments. I have heard that we may have to debate all of them. Of the 15, 10 require new money, 2 or more will force new mandates on the States--more paperwork for that piddling little 7 percent money that the States get, something that guts flexibility, which is the intent of this bill. The others are amendments to elementary and secondary education that are not appropriate on this bill. This bill isn't part of elementary and secondary education. It never was. We passed this bill last year with the President's support without all of those extraneous programs. Let me repeat: We had the President's support on the exact bill last year. Now the President says, If you don't add a bunch of these flash- in-the-pan politics for me, this additional spending, I will have to veto your bill. I am a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I am glad to debate those new authorizations in that committee. I will not support authorizing these very expensive mandates on this bill. It doesn't make any sense to me, for example, to put a $1.4 billion mandate onto States and locals to hire new teachers without the details. One of those details is what happens when the Federal Government doesn't provide continuing funding. That is what we do with these flash-in-the-pan politics. We fund them for a while. We get the benefit of the press on them, and then we dump them like a hot potato because we can't afford them. Where does that leave the school district that hired that teacher, reduced the class size, promised those parents they would have a smaller class size? It puts them behind again with another mandate to fund the project that had some temptation for them when it was money being offered. Let me ask another question. The way we work Federal legislation and regulations and paperwork, when it is recognized that we cannot afford that teacher who they have been given, who gets laid off, the Federal hire or the local hire? This bill is about local folks. This amendment is about Federal rules and regulations. That is why the underlying bill is such good medicine. It is a good dose of common sense for a system beleaguered by Washington fever. It doesn't offer any new programs. It doesn't offer billions of dollars to hire a bunch of consultants. It offers a new format for innovation. That is it. The format is flexibility so States and locals can improve their schools. Every Member of this body should support this bill. If it ever comes to a vote, I am sure they will support this bill. Or at least I was sure. But when you have cosponsors who don't even vote for cloture that would allow another 30 hours to debate the bill, I am not sure. I know our States will thank us for this bill, our schools will thank us for it, most importantly, our kids will thank us for doing it. It is time to put away the promises made--the politics of the poll, the politics as usual--and do some promises kept. This bill is a promise made. It is a promise that can be done. It is the common ground that was talked about during the trial. It is time to find that common ground. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to S. 4. The amendment has already been sent to the desk.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. The need for this bill is obvious. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are all experiencing recruitment and retention problems that threaten to further degrade our already overstressed military. By every measure, quality of life issues are the center of the problem. Fortunately, our military personnel don't join to get rich. In this all too material age, it is refreshing to note that their motivations to remain in uniform do not include financial gain. Nonetheless, it is a fact that our current military is not the military of our fathers. It currently includes the highest percentage of families in its history. The pay, the retirement, and the medical benefits are issues that must be addressed. This bill seeks to do that. Educational opportunities are also important to our service people, especially those who perhaps are not career oriented. We cannot lose sight of the fact that what we do here today will benefit not just our military personnel by increasing knowledge, eliminating boredom, and stimulating the mind, but are all things that improve the capability of our young men and women in our armed services. Our society at large will benefit especially with regard to educational opportunities. Today's corporal studying in his off-duty hours for his bachelor's degree might well be tomorrow's small business employer. Nevertheless, his extra effort will improve his job performance immediately. The Department of Defense has long offered excellent opportunities for active duty personnel to better themselves through education. The administrators of these programs are enthusiastic and devoted to the uniformed people they serve. There is one thing we can do, however, to fine tune the regulations they must follow, and my amendment is designed to do just that. Currently, secretaries of each branch of the service are authorized to pay up to 75 percent of college tuition and related instructional costs for most personnel pursuing additional education in their off duty hours. However, for Navy personnel deployed aboard ship, the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to pay the full 100 percent of such costs by virtue of their PACE program. PACE is an acronym for ``Program for Afloat College Education.'' Therefore, a soldier on deployment in Bosnia may only be receiving reimbursement for 75 percent of his tuition costs, while just offshore, a sailor deployed aboard ship is receiving 100 percent. My amendment would authorize all service secretaries to pay up to 100 percent of tuition costs for personnel deployed on a contingency basis. It does not require that a specific percentage be paid. It simply gives a service secretary that option. And because the exercising of that option is contingent on the availability of funding, no additional appropriation is required. This amendment will equalize the playing field between the services as well as make the difficult deployments to such places as Bosnia and Saudi Arabia a bit more beneficial to those service people who wish to take advantage of the opportunity. It is supported by the Defense Department and is indisputable in the interests of our young men and women in uniform. I ask my colleagues for their support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help reform America's tax system. The bill I introduce today is designed to advance the important goal of encouraging charitable contributions. With this proposal, I add my voice to the Republican chorus in the Senate and House of Representatives calling for reform of our tax system to make it fairer and less burdensome for all Americans. The bill I introduce today is the Equity in Charitable Giving Act. This legislation, which is also cosponsored by the senior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, would provide relief for taxpayers who have had legitimate charitable contributions disallowed by the IRS because of a technical change Congress made to the Tax Code in 1993. In that year, a change was made to section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with the documentation required by taxpayers to claim charitable contributions. The new change required taxpayers to have a ``contemporaneous written acknowledgment'' of their contributions for all contributions they claimed over $250 in a taxable year. While the purpose of this change was understandable, the rule espoused was too broad and it has in turn yielded some harsh results. Some taxpayers, unaware of the change in the law, did not receive the necessary acknowledgment before they filed their taxes. This oversight is understandable. For example, a taxpayer who filed his taxes in February may not have received the necessary documentation from the affected charities prior to filing his taxes. Under the current rule, any contributions over $250 would be disallowed even if he received the proper documentation before his taxes were due on April 15th. As a result of the very narrow definition of ``contemporaneous'' found in section 170(f)(8)(C), a number of taxpayers have had their otherwise lawful charitable contributions disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service. This punitive rule elevates form over substance and places an unwarranted burden on those generous taxpayers desiring to make their communities better places in which to live. The Equity in Charitable Giving Act, which I introduce today, has one simple purpose: to provide tax relief for those taxpayers who fell through the cracks when the law on charitable contributions was changed. While this bill would still require taxpayers to receive the proper documentation from the charitable organization, taxpayers would have a longer time to file this written acknowledgment with the Internal Revenue Service. In order to take advantage of this flexibility, taxpayers would also have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that no goods or services were received from the tax exempt organization in return for their contributions. While this is only a small step in the larger journey of reforming America's Tax Code, it furthers the important objective of charitable giving by ensuring that taxpayers receive the proper tax treatment for their gifts. Mr. President, the time has come to provide meaningful tax relief and reform for the American people. The Republican-led Congress has taken important and meaningful steps in that direction over the past two years with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Internal Revenue Service Reform Act of 1998. We must continue this important endeavor by continuing to restructure our tax policy to respect marriage and families, encourage investment and savings, reward charitable giving, and promote job creation and entrepreneurship. I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. Chief Justice and Colleagues of the Senate. This has been a month long ethics and Constitution class--with mandatory attendance. That should have value for each of us. I'm getting more mail each day than I normally get in a month--and most of it is from your constituents. That's right. Out of every 1000 letters I get, only 30 are from Wyoming. I have some ideas what your constituents are saying. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to present any legal arguments. Most of my constituents aren't lawyers. I notice that most of your constituents aren't either. I've only served on one jury before and we didn't even get to render a verdict. A boy was being tried for poaching deer out of season--shot with a twenty-two. He was caught red-handed in the barn with the twenty-two and two of the six deer hanging to be butchered. The Boy's argument began claiming he hadn't been properly read his rights. His dad, supporting from the audience, stopped the trial by asking the judge if he could speak with his son. They went into the hall a couple minutes. A boy freshly chastised said, ``I want to plead guilty. In our family we don't believe in getting off on technicalities.'' A successful trial. I watched a boy become a man. I thought about propounding a unanimous consent that anything already said couldn't be repeated as testimony even though it could be submitted. I thought that would speed up the proceedings. I will not propound it but will attempt to follow it. Instead of the smooth transitions and brilliant arguments, you will only hear what is left. I trust you will rush to get a copy of my whole statement. Here goes! The President was so thorough in denying any relationship with Monica Lewinsky, that Janet Reno believed him. Janet Reno is the person who expanded the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky matter. The President told all of us he had done nothing wrong. His own Attorney General believed him. Janet Reno was helping to clear the air on these ludicrous charges when SHE gave Ken Starr the approval, direction and budget. When our country was founded oaths meant everything. A man's word was his bond. Their oath was honor and duels were fought to defend honor. When this trial started you and I had to take an oath. It struck me that I might be taking an oath to determine if oaths still mean anything. The White House argues that the President's actions will not have an affect on anyone. I am hearing from judges who say people before their court are asking for the same treatment given the President. They do not feel their situation is as blatant as the President and they are more repentant and remorseful. Some have even taken action to correct their wrong. All feel they should get a suspended sentence. I was disappointed with the White House failure to explain all of the charges. Their rebuttal was focused on those charges for which they felt they could answer or, more accurately use to create the most confusion. Skipping the tough issues is not an answer. This is not an issue of spin or even polls. Impeachment is the most serious indictment a President or judge can get. The President was impeached by the House of Representatives. His reaction was to celebrate in the Rose Garden of the White House--spin again--more spin than a kid's top. Truth was needed. Dizzy deception is what we've gotten. The President's Counsel admit he lied, was evasive, misleading. The words and adjectives used by the White House Counsel during the trial should be enough to condemn the President. But they still expect us to trust the President with the country? Do you think he will only lie about sex? This man sends our children into war. He has to be held to the highest standard. I would feel more comfortable if even one person would have said, ``He didn't do this.'' Only the President said that, and we all know he wasn't truthful. Last year an Air Force pilot, an officer, was forced to resign. She was having a consensual sexual affair. It was adultery. She didn't lie about it. She was forced to resign--removed from office--because we couldn't trust her with deadly weapons. The President pushes the button on the whole world--not just on one plane. Oh, that's right, this isn't about personal sex. No one would ever be removed from office for that. But the President is doing a great job. Job performance cannot be the defense for perjury or obstruction of justice or sexual harassment or any other crime. If a bank president embezzled even a little money from his bank would we leave him alone? Would we say, ``That's okay because the bank was doing well''? We had a hypothetical situation posed to us--an employee who controlled the whole computer system and he did what the President did. If there is any parallel, you'd fire him! You'd fire him because you have been cross-training a vice president of computer systems. I've listened to the arguments about world peace and I've got to say, that's a terrible indictment of the capabilities of the Vice President. When the video evidence was countered, White House Counsel had one presentation on Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. A second presentation was made on Vernon Jordan's testimony. Why didn't White House Counsel counter Sidney Blumenthal's testimony at all? Charges made, charges unanswered. If you have enough votes, I guess you only need to look credible. Presidents have power. Power draws loyalty. Are we a country with one set of standards for the rich, famous, or powerful? Is that the way we want our country to be? This isn't even a popularity contest. Popularity cannot be a defense in an impeachment trial. House manager Rogan said he would risk his political future for the Constitution. He said, ``Dreams come and dreams go, but conscience is forever.'' We are supposed to be the collective conscience of our nation. Are we trying instead to salve our conscience? We talk of censure? Isn't that just another way to salve our conscience. When this trial is over we better come together as a nation--undivided and behind whoever is the President--not debating again to what degree he is bad. Some have been wrestling with whether the offenses ``rise to the level of impeachment''. The founders may have been a lot tougher than we are. We've talked about a guilty vote by a two thirds majority removing from office. The founders provided for a second vote--a vote that takes away more rights and honor--the right to hold public office ever again. Should we suggest the offenses, especially in the cumulative, rise to the level of impeachment and then wrestle with the question and vote on ``forever''? Judges are appointed for life. Presidents have the title for life. I heard a suggestion that we can't remove the President for sexual harassment because we are not his boss or because he has such a critical position. The founders recognized both those circumstances. We are not the President's boss--but we have been given that responsibility through impeachment. He holds a critical position, that's why the founders established the succession. And remember, that was when impeachment could put another party into the presidency. And that was when the Senate was appointed, not elected. ``The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'' was a book we were introduced to in high school. Rome went through this phase too. Free lunches for the masses, an emphasis on entertainment, and no accountability for the powerful. We have seen the rise of America. Will we be listed in history as the start of the fall? Our society is eroding. Our values are disappearing. If you watch the news, many nights the main lead even during this trial is about the multiple murders right around us. We've been talking about ``an impeach able standard''. We've talked about the ``Reagen Test'' I'm going to suggest two more tests. The ``Mom Test'' and the ``Spouse Test''. When you were growing up, did your mom need proof ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' before punishment? Did she ever say, ``Don't put yourself in a position where it even looks like you did something wrong.'' Circumstantial evidence was enough. Did your mom ever say, ``Watch out who you hang out with. It reflects on you.'' Did your mom say, ``Watch your actions--they reflect on you and your family''? Did your mom ever say, ``Act so I won't be embarrassed tomorrow reading the front page of the paper about what you did today.'' The President has complained that others are out to get him. That he is the most investigated President in history. Perhaps he ought to apply the ``Mom Test''. What about the ``Spouse Test''? My wife has applied that test. She said, ``If this were a Republican President, I would have already chained myself to the White House fence until he resigned.'' She is absolutely stymied that women's groups haven't done that. For years she and I fought the accusations that women's groups were only about allowing abortion--but their silence on the President has changed my mind. I will not defend them as they have not defended any woman defamed by the actions and the words of the President. And a final ``Spouse Test''--when you are playing games with sex definitions ask, ``What would my spouse think I was doing?'' While we may have a country doing well economically we are headed toward moral bankruptcy if the trend is not reversed. We are becoming ``De-Moralized'' With this case we are all in a ``no-win'' situation. We have heard the media and the Democrats note that the Republicans are committing political suicide. But just as many mention the Democrats are filing moral bankruptcy. History will be the judge of us all. Our constituents just expect us to do ``What is right''! They will expect us to do what is right based even on what comes out in the future. Yes, what is right based on the books and future disclosures of the participants. They will judge us even based on the future actions of this President. Our words will be forgotten, our verdict won't. This isn't about politics. Its about our country. Its not about Bill Clinton. Its about the future of the Presidency. The process is on trial. The Senate is on trial. No, Truthfully, Truth is on trial! As we enter into our final deliberations on whether or not to convict President Clinton on the two articles of Impeachment presented to us by the House of Representatives, I think it is imperative that we remember the oath each of us took at the outset of this historic process. Each one of us took an oath before God to do ``impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.'' That oath should guide our thoughts and actions for it reminds us of the gravity of this process and the weighty responsibility we assumed by our own free will. We must finally remember that we answer not only to future generations who will judge whether we did right by the Constitution we swore to uphold, but also to that eternal witness of our most solemn oath. I will be the first to admit that striving to be impartial has been very difficult. To be a good juror is a heavy burden. That duty is heightened when one is also called to wear a judge's robe when sitting as a silent juror weighing the evidence, probing the credibility and motives of the various witnesses, and ascertaining the appropriate law which applies to the facts before you. There are few duties we will face in our life as grave as this one: to decide the political fate of the President of the United States. Before the trial started I read everything I could find that dealt with impeachment history. As the trial progressed, I read volumes of published evidence including the prior testimony of the witnesses in this proceeding. I have attended all of the proceedings in the Senate from start to finish. I have carefully watched all of the videotaped depositions. I have read all of the transcripts of these depositions. I watched many parts of the depositions several times to be sure I understood exactly what each witness was saying and how that testimony fit with that witnesses' prior testimony and with the testimony of other witnesses who testified under oath. These depositions were very helpful in focusing the key points of this trial and deciding who was testifying truthfully and who was lying in instances where the testimony is in conflict. In short, I believe I have taken into account nearly all of the pertinent information in this case in coming to my final decision. This case challenges us to consider whether, in light of all the evidence, President Clinton's actions indicate that he has, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, ``abused or violated some public trust.'' In making this determination, we must first decide whether allegations presented by the House Managers do in fact constitute ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' as contemplated in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. I have come to the conclusion that they do. I believe that perjury and obstruction of justice demonstrate intentional, pre-meditated violations of an indispensable public trust. In taking the oath of office, President Clinton twice raised his right hand and placed his hand on the Bible swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. By this oath, he took upon himself the duty to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Actions which undermine this high duty, whether they involved committing perjury in a judicial proceeding or obstructing justice, strike at the very heart of the rule of law. There is no contradiction that perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes for the average citizen in the United States. Both of these offenses presented by the House managers are felonies under the federal criminal code, and both carry equivalent or even higher minimum sentences than bribery under the federal sentencing guidelines. Nor is the seriousness of these crimes simply a matter of abstract speculation. We heard video testimony of a real, live citizen who has paid a very heavy price indeed for the crime of perjury. In July of 1995, Dr. Barbara Battalino, a physician who worked for the Veterans Administration, lied under oath about an encounter she had had with one of her patients. As a result of this perjury, Dr. Battalino was fired from the Veterans Administration, she lost her license to practice medicine, she was prohibited from ever practicing law (she also had a law degree), and she was required to wear an electronic ankle bracelet for 3 years. Those who argue that perjury about sexual matters is not serious owe Dr. Battalino a heartfelt apology. Dr. Battalino lied one time about one consensual act of oral sex. Moreover, both perjury and obstruction of justice were counted among the list of ``public wrongs'' as opposed to private wrongs under Common Law at the time of the American founding. These are the very kind of crimes the founders contemplated when they included the impeachment and removal mechanism in the Constitution. These crimes were not considered to be private offenses by the Common Law, nor by the Founding Fathers. The pre-eminent commentator on the English Common Law at the time of the American founding, William Blackstone, described perjury, or false swearing in a judicial proceeding, as an ``offense against public justice.'' As with perjury, obstruction of justice was considered a ``high misprision'' or ``high misdemeanor'' at the time of the drafting of our own Constitution. It should be remembered that this Senate has convicted and removed federal judges for perjury. In the 1980s alone, this body removed three federal judges for lying under oath. Many in this chamber had occasion to vote in those cases and voted to remove these judges because they saw that the act of perjury, even if it involved lying about one's taxes, was incompatible with a judge's duty to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States. When confronted with these very recent precedents, the White House lawyers have argued that this Senate should apply a lesser standard to the President than to federal judges. They argue that federal judges should be held to a higher standard because they are given life tenure under Article III of the Constitution. I must admit, that this is an argument that I cannot square either with the plain language of the Constitution or with common sense. Do we really want to hold our President to a lower standard than the federal judges he appoints? It is our President, after all, who appoints all the United States attorneys and the federal marshals, who names all the cabinet officials, who has the authority to send American troops into battle, and who can sign treaties with foreign nations. A corrupt federal district court judge can work injustice on the litigants who enter his courtroom. A corrupt President, by contrast, has the power to wreak havoc on the entire political order. The President's oath forbids him to selectively decide whether to follow the laws of the land based on a calculation of political expediency or determination of personal gain or loss. He is bound to follow Constitution and the laws of our country in and out of season. By intentionally violating this duty, the president's actions display the tendencies of an unbridled monarch rather than a constitutional executive who must bow before the law he swore to faithfully execute. On the specific article of perjury, there is abundant evidence that President Clinton violated his oath to ``tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'' on several occasions. As the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the President was bound to ``tell the whole truth'' and act in a manner becoming of the dignity of his office. President Clinton did not do this. When asked before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 whether he understood that he had an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his prior deposition of January 17, 1999 in a federal civil rights suit, the President testified that ``His goal was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful''. He later admitted that his testimony had been ``misleading''. For any plain speaking American, to be misleading is the same as lying. In short, the President violated his oath to ``tell the whole truth'' when he misled the court. The facts indicate that President was not attempting to be truthful and was not truthful in his deposition in the Jones federal civil rights case. Moreover, he lied about the nature of his relationship with a subordinate employee before the federal grand jury. The President also allowed his attorney, Robert Bennett, to file a false affidavit on his behalf denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The President continued this pattern of deception by lying to his top aides with the knowledge that they were likely to be called as witnesses before the federal grand jury. He then attempted to cover up these lies by claiming he had possibly ``misled'' his aides, but he did not lie to them since he knew they were likely to be called as witnesses before the federal grand jury. These were lies. They were lies under oath. They were lies that adversely impacted the rights of a United States citizen to obtain relief in a civil rights case in federal court. They were lies under oath in a federal grand jury after he had been begged by his aides, his friends, and some in this chamber to finally tell the truth. They were lies of a public character and they were unbefitting the chief law enforcement officer of our country. What is perhaps most disturbing about these lies, is that the President's actions indicate he had no intention of ever telling the truth of his relationship. He had already lied under oath in a federal civil rights action, he lied to his top aides and cabinet officers, he lied to his friends and political allies, and he lied with perfect calculation to the American public, including myself. I remain convinced that the only reason the President admitted his relationship at all was the discovery of the now famous ``blue dress''. Only when it became clear that he could no longer continue his pattern of judicial and public deception did the President admit that he had in fact had an ``improper relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky. Unfortunately, the President's deception did not end with the revelation of the DNA. Rather, it graduated to legal hairsplitting, attempts to torture plain English language, and statements which degraded the judicial process and insulted the intelligence of the American public. The President has not carried out the public trust the American public entrusted to him when he was twice elected President. When the President's actions became public, the President even turned his sword of deception against his partner in perjury. Once the Washington Post broke the story on the President's extra-marital affair and his possible perjury and obstruction of justice, the President called in his top aides to deny the story and destroy the character of Monica Lewinsky. We have seen and heard the video testimony of one of President Clinton's top aides, Sidney Blumenthal. Immediately after the story broke, President Clinton called Sidney Blumenthal into the Oval Office and denied the entire story. He went on to say that Monica Lewinsky was a troubled young woman who was called the ``stalker'' by her peers. He said that she came on to him and made a sexual demand of him, but he rebuffed her. The President went so far as to claim that Ms. Lewinsky had threatened to tell people that she had had an affair with him, even though it was not true. In the words of Mr. Blumenthal, the President ``lied to him.'' As expected, Mr. Sidney Blumenthal repeated these lies before the federal grand jury. There is also growing evidence that Mr. Blumenthal, or other key White House aides, circulated these lies to the popular media. Such conduct further establishes that the President was willing to go to all lengths to prevent anyone from discovering the truth about his illegal conduct in a federal civil rights case. The President's lawyers argued that the President could not have intended to corruptly influence the grand jury proceeding since the lies the President told his top aides were no different than the lie the President told the American people when he adamantly denied having ``sexual affairs, with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.'' If this is the best defense the White House lawyers can wage for their client, it speaks volumes about the President's character. Unfortunately, it is also false. The President never told the American people that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker, or that she wore her skirts too tight, or that she came on to him and made sexual demands on him. This is exactly what the President told his aide, Sidney Blumenthal. The President never enumerated the sexual acts he ``did not commit'' with Monica Lewinsky. He did deny with great specificity, these acts when questioned by his assistant chief of staff, John Podesta. The President did lie to the American public. However, he also told other lies to his top aides, knowing that they were likely to be called as witnesses before the criminal grand jury. There is also substantial evidence that the President attempted to obstruct justice in both the civil rights case brought against him and the federal criminal investigation conducted by Judge Starr. It should be noted that Judge Kenneth Starr's investigation was not the creature of President Clinton's political enemies, as some have asserted. President Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno, directed Judge Starr to expand his investigation to include the allegations in this case. If Janet Reno is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, then that operation is very vast indeed. We now know that the Monica Lewinsky filed a false affidavit in the Jones civil action. We also know that the President called Ms. Lewinsky at home at 2:30 in the morning to inform her that she had been named on the witness list in the Jones Civil Rights case. We also know that in this conversation, the President also suggested Ms. Lewinsky could file an affidavit to avoid testifying. Finally, we know that the President reminded Ms. Lewinsky of their agreed upon ``cover stories'' to conceal their relationship. While President's lawyers have made much over Ms. Lewinsky's statement that ``the President never asked me to lie'', they are unable to put a positive spin on the cover stories and the President's attempts to encourage Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit in the first place. It stretches the bounds of credulity beyond recognition to believe that the President intended Ms. Lewinsky to tell the truth when: 1) he himself lied under oath about their relationship, 2) he reminded Ms. Lewinsky of their cover stories in the same conversation in which he suggested that she file an affidavit, and 3) he relied on Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit in his own testimony denying their relationship. Finally, when Ms. Lewinsky asked President Clinton if he wanted to see her signed affidavit, he said he didn't need to see it because he had ``seen fifteen others like it''. This response remains one of the more puzzling in this case and leaves open the possibility that the President tampered with other witnesses in the Jones Civil Rights case. We also now know that the President's personal secretary, Betty Currie, hid presents under her bed that had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. These are the gifts the President had given to Monica Lewinsky during their relationship. Ms. Lewinsky has testified that Bettie Currie definitely called her about the gifts, and the only way Ms. Currie could have known about the gifts is if the President instructed her to pick them up. While the President's lawyers deny this explanation, the only phone record we know about is a phone call made from Betty Currie to Ms. Lewinsky on the day she picked up the gifts. The President's lawyers have failed to produce any concrete evidence to contradict this explanation. Concealing gifts that are under subpoena in a legal proceeding is illegal and it obstructs the administration of justice. Moreover, the conclusion that it was in fact President Clinton who directed Betty Currie to conceal the presents is bolstered by the fact that the President corruptly attempted to influence Ms. Currie's testimony in a federal civil rights suit. President Clinton made several false statements to Betty Currie on Sunday, January 18, 1997, the day after he testified in the Jones lawsuit. Ms. Currie, who explained that it was very unusual for the President to ask her to come in to work on a Sunday, testified that President Clinton made a series of false statements to her as if asking for her consent. Specifically, the President stated to Ms. Currie: 1) ``You were always there when she [Monica Lewinsky] was there, right? We were never really alone.'' 2) ``You could see and hear everything.'' 3) ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' 4) She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.'' All of these statements were false, and all of them occurred the day after Judge Wright had expressly forbidden any of the parties deposed or their attorneys from discussing the deposition with anyone. The President's lawyers have argued that the President made these statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms. Currie knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one's recollection with false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe. The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted when you consider that the President called Betty Currie in a second time, on January 20th to ``remind'' her of these statements. The most likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. That President was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and obstruction of justice. The inescapable conclusion I have come to is that the President of the United States set upon a deliberate, premeditated plan to deceive the court in two separate legal proceedings and to encourage others to deceive the court as well. The President first defended himself by claiming to be the unfortunate victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. Only after the physical evidence uncovered the truth about his affair did the President claim he was only trying to protect his family from these embarrassing revelations. Neither of these excuses justifies the President's actions. A defendant in a legal proceeding does not have the right to perjure himself because he questions the motives of the plaintiff. There are proper legal procedures and remedies available to any defendant who believes he has been the victim of a lawsuit predicated on frivolous legal theories or springing from personal malice. It is, however, never legitimate to respond to even a frivolous lawsuit by lying under oath. There has been a great debate on how the President's actions will impact our nation, especially if those actions go unpunished. Last year I read of a town in Midwestern America that had experienced a number of killings in the first two months of the year. A consultant was hired to find the cause of these brutal acts. I believe the findings in his report should cause all of us to take pause. He explained that first a window is broken and nobody fixes it. That leads to a lawn that isn't mowed. Through a series of similar instances, the kids think nobody cares about them. If we let the President off for intentionally violating the rule of law, what do we tell our children when they are caught breaking the law? That we have one law for the rulers and another for the ruled? Do we tell them they have to follow the law until they become powerful enough, or clever enough, or rich enough to violate the law with impunity? What do we tell the federal judges who have lost their robes and gavels for committing perjury? What do we tell military officers who have lost their livelihood for violating their oaths and rules of their office? What do we tell average citizens who have lost their jobs, their freedom, and their fortunes for violating their oaths to tell the truth in a court of law? If the legacy we leave to our children is one of cynical duplicity, I fear that even an ever-increasing Dow Jones' average will be incapable of salvaging our next generation, or even, I fear, our civilization. I must conclude that while the power of Impeachment and removal is a strong measure and one that should never be taken gently, it is an indispensable remedy in our government for those public officers who have so violated their public trust as to be unworthy to continue holding offices of public trust. The great Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional scholar Joseph Story perhaps best summarized the impeachment mechanism as one which ``holds out a deep and immediate responsibility, as a check upon arbitrary power; and compels the chief magistrate, as well as the humblest citizen, to bend to the majesty of the laws.'' Those who would disregard this rule of law for their own personal or political ends must not be allowed to remain in offices of public trust. For this reason, I will vote to convict President Clinton on both articles of Impeachment. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help reform America's tax system. The bill I introduce today is designed to advance the important goal of encouraging charitable contributions. With this proposal, I add my voice to the Republican chorus in the Senate and House of Representatives calling for reform of our tax system to make it fairer and less burdensome for all Americans. The bill I introduce today is the Equity in Charitable Giving Act. This legislation, which is also cosponsored by the senior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, would provide relief for taxpayers who have had legitimate charitable contributions disallowed by the IRS because of a technical change Congress made to the Tax Code in 1993. In that year, a change was made to section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with the documentation required by taxpayers to claim charitable contributions. The new change required taxpayers to have a ``contemporaneous written acknowledgment'' of their contributions for all contributions they claimed over $250 in a taxable year. While the purpose of this change was understandable, the rule espoused was too broad and it has in turn yielded some harsh results. Some taxpayers, unaware of the change in the law, did not receive the necessary acknowledgment before they filed their taxes. This oversight is understandable. For example, a taxpayer who filed his taxes in February may not have received the necessary documentation from the affected charities prior to filing his taxes. Under the current rule, any contributions over $250 would be disallowed even if he received the proper documentation before his taxes were due on April 15th. As a result of the very narrow definition of ``contemporaneous'' found in section 170(f)(8)(C), a number of taxpayers have had their otherwise lawful charitable contributions disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service. This punitive rule elevates form over substance and places an unwarranted burden on those generous taxpayers desiring to make their communities better places in which to live. The Equity in Charitable Giving Act, which I introduce today, has one simple purpose: to provide tax relief for those taxpayers who fell through the cracks when the law on charitable contributions was changed. While this bill would still require taxpayers to receive the proper documentation from the charitable organization, taxpayers would have a longer time to file this written acknowledgment with the Internal Revenue Service. In order to take advantage of this flexibility, taxpayers would also have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that no goods or services were received from the tax exempt organization in return for their contributions. While this is only a small step in the larger journey of reforming America's Tax Code, it furthers the important objective of charitable giving by ensuring that taxpayers receive the proper tax treatment for their gifts. Mr. President, the time has come to provide meaningful tax relief and reform for the American people. The Republican-led Congress has taken important and meaningful steps in that direction over the past two years with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Internal Revenue Service Reform Act of 1998. We must continue this important endeavor by continuing to restructure our tax policy to respect marriage and families, encourage investment and savings, reward charitable giving, and promote job creation and entrepreneurship. I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.