Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, in the past, American presidents have argued that a congressional appropriation for U.S. military action abroad constitutes a congressional authorization for the military action. I will not vote for an authorization of money that may be construed as authorizing, or encouraging the expansion of, the President's military operations in Kosovo. I will oppose the appropriation of almost $11 billion for a war I have consistently spoken out against. On March 23, I voted against President Clinton's decision to launch the air campaign in Yugoslovia. On May 4, I voted against a resolution that would have given the President blanket authority to expand the operation. To date, I have not been convinced that this war is necessary to protect a vital national security interest, and I have opposed efforts to escalate the conflict. I have a number of secondary considerations with respect to this legislation. I am concerned, for one, about plundering the Social Security trust funds to pay for a war that involves no vital national security interest. If I believed that vital national security interests were at stake, I would consider the argument to fund the war from the Social Security trust fund surplus. But in the absence of a vital national security interest, I do not believe the Congress should pay for the war out of the Social Security trust funds. I am also concerned about some of the anti-environmental riders added to the emergency supplemental bill in conference. These provisions should have been fully debated, and should have gone through the normal legislative process, instead of being slipped into the bill in the dead of night. I am disappointed that I can't support this bill, because it contains funding for farmers hit by low commodity prices. Some of this is funding that I've argued for and, in fact, voted for in earlier instances, including S. 544. But my opposition to funding the military action in Kosovo is firm. I can endorse neither the authorization for the war, nor the appropriations process that is its genesis.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 19, a resolution condemning growing Russian anti-Semitism. Russian anti-Semitism, is nothing new in the world. Throughout Russian history, Jews have faced attacks in the form of pogroms, forced military duty for terms of up to 25 years, and a general pattern of persecution and discrimination. With the end of the Soviet Union and the rise of democracy in Russia, we thought these kinds of acts were a part of the past. Unfortunately, they are not. On Saturday, May 1, there were two bomb blasts at two Moscow synagogues, one at Moscow's main Choral Synagogue. There was light damage at both sites, yet the bombings on the Sabbath and on May 1, ``May Day'' was a scary development. These violent acts, combined with the various statements issued by Communist members of the Russian Duma can only serve to stir up increased violence. This is extremely unfortunate. There is no place for violence and hatred in our society. We in Congress and the rest of the world must actively condemn this violence and hatred before it gets out of hand, as has been the case all too many times in this century. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Roberts, and Ashcroft, to submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the next round of agricultural trade negotiations. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am very concerned about U.S. agriculture's position in the next round of negotiations. This resolution establishes clear direction to the Administration as it enters the Seattle negotiations this November. These process and procedural guidelines have been developed through a consensus process of the Seattle Round Agricultural Committee (SRAC). SRAC represents over 70 agricultural organizations--from the Farm Bureau to the National Oilseed Processors Association of Kraft Foods. This diverse group of agriculturalists have spent many hours developing these principles to ensure that our international agriculture markets remain strong, open and fair for our nation's farmers. The U.S. agricultural sector is one of the only segments of our economy that consistently produces a trade surplus. In fact, our agricultural surplus totaled $27.2 billion in 1996. However, we must not rest on our laurels; the United States Department of Agriculture projects that our agricultural trade surplus in 1999 will dwindle to approximately $12 billion. We must not let this trend continue. Free and open international markets are vital to my home state. Illinois' 76,000 farms cover more than 28 million acres--nearly 80 percent of Illinois. Our farm product sales generate nine billion dollars annually and Illinois ranks third in agricultural exports. In fiscal year 1997 alone, Illinois agricultural exports totaled $3.7 billion and created 57,000 jobs for our state. Needless to say, agriculture makes up a significant portion of my state's economy, and a healthy export market for these products is important to my constituents. As you know, farm commodity prices have recently been in a slump. This situation makes open debate on agricultural trade and the Seattle round even more timely and necessary. While the average tariff assessed by the United States on agricultural products is less than five percent, the average agricultural tariff assessed by other World Trade Organization members exceeds 40 percent. This situation is clearly unfair and certainly depresses U.S. agricultural commodity prices. Accordingly, this issue must be addressed in the next round. I look forward to working with my colleagues on policies to tear down international trade barriers and ensure that our agricultural trade surplus expands and remains strong. This resolution is the first step toward ensuring that agriculture is a top priority of the Administration during the next round of multilateral trade negotiations. I want to recognize and commend my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Roberts, and Ashcroft, for joining me as original co-sponsors of this resolution. This resolution should enjoy bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation important to our nation's farmers.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, twice, the Senate has failed to invoke cloture on the Social Security Lock Box. I am a cosponsor of this important amendment and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in support for a Social Security lock box. For several years, Congress has taken all the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and spent it on other programs. In fact, through the end of last year, Congress has taken over $730 billion out of the trust fund and spent it all on other programs. I believe that it is wrong to spend Social Security Trust Fund money on other programs. If a private corporation were to take money out of an employees' pension plan and spend it on something else, the executives of that corporation would, under Congress' own laws, be subject to prosecution and imprisonment. Why do we allow Congress to raid Social Security, the pension fund for all Americans? Each time our government takes money out of the Social Security Trust Funds, it incurs a debt to these funds. To date, the government has incurred total debts of over $730 billion to the Social Security Trust Funds. The debts owed to these funds are included in the calculation of our total national debt which now stands at roughly $5.5 trillion. This debt, along with the program's massive unfunded liabilities, will ultimately have to be paid by future taxpayers. The lock box proposal would ban Congress from spending Social Security Trust Fund monies on other programs (unless there is a super- majority vote to do so). Those who oppose the lockbox proposal want to continue spending Social Security Trust Funds on other new and unrelated programs. While I believe that we need to take other steps to protect Social Security, I nevertheless believe that this lockbox provision is an important first step in ensuring the long-term fiscal health of our nation. By making it more difficult to spend Social Security Trust Funds on other programs, we will make it easier for ourselves to meet our obligation to Social Security in the future.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, last week, high school students from across the United States came to Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I am proud to announce that the class from Maine South High School from Park Ridge, Illinois won the competition. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program is designed to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of expert judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee,'' that is, a panel of judges representing various regions in the country and a cross-section of professional fields. The student testimony is followed by a period of questioning during which the judges quiz students for their depth of understanding and their ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I congratulate all the student teams who made it to the national finals. Each of those young people took the time to truly learn about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In return, they got the opportunity to come to Washington and to meet other students from around the country. I applaud their efforts and initiative. I am particularly proud that the winning team is from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois. Led by their teacher, Patton Feichter, the students won the three day competition to become national champions. At a time when so much of our attention is focused on youth violence, it is particularly refreshing to congratulate an outstanding group of young people who worked very hard to achieve their goals. I congratulate the students, parents, and Maine South faculty members on all their hard work to win the competition.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, It is my pleasure to recognize an outstanding public high school in my home state of illinois. I, along with Senator Dick Durbin, want to congratulate Lincoln Park High School, a public high school in Chicago, Illinois, on its 100th anniversary this year. Throughout its history, Lincoln Park High School has been a model for other public schools in its single minded pursuit of excellence. I'd like to share with you some of the history of this terrific school. Lincoln Park is the oldest continually-used public high school in the Chicago Public School system. Since its opening in 1899, more than 100,000 students have passed through the doors of Lincoln Park High and benefitted from the classes and extracurricular activities offered. Additionally, Lincoln Park High has created an atmosphere of academic excellence and produced many Illinois State Scholars and National Merit Scholars. It is ranked consistently among the top high schools in test scores and other measures of academic achievement. The school's strive to excel is readily apparent with the establishment of rigorous academic programs such as the ``Access to Excellence'' magnet program and the International Baccalaureate Program, a program available only in selected schools. The outstanding academic success of Lincoln Park High School prompted President Ronald Reagan to praise the school publicly in 1984. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this resolution with my colleague, Senator Durbin, and congratulate the faculty, staff and students who attend Lincoln Park High School on their 100th anniversary. They should be very proud of this tremendous accomplishment.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to streamline the process our farmers follow when filing paper work with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently, when farmers are required to fill out USDA paper work, they are required to travel to their local USDA county offices, complete the paper work, wait in long lines and file these documents in paper form. This process is very inefficient and time consuming. The bill that I introduce today simply requires USDA to develop a system for farmers to access and file this paper work over the internet. This legislation entitled the ``Freedom to E-file Act'' simply makes good common sense. As our society has become more technologically advanced so have our farmers. In fact, a 1998 Novartis survey found that over 72 percent of all farmers with 500 acres or more had personal computers. Overall, over fifty percent of all farmers surveyed had computers. Our agriculturalists use computers not only for financial management and market information but for sophisticated precision agriculture management systems. These sophisticated small business owners could easily file necessary farm program paperwork from their homes and offices if only this option was available. Farmers are often frustrated with the long lines at county USDA offices, especially during their most hectic times such as harvest season. Our nation's farmers are clearly overburdened by government- required paperwork. This bill is the first step in the right direction toward regulatory reform for our U.S. food producers. This legislation is budget neutral and USDA would implement the bill using existing funds. I want to recognize and commend my colleague, Congressman Ray LaHood, for championing the companion to this bill in the House of Representatives. This bill should enjoy bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill important to our nation's farmers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Holocaust Era Assets Tax Exclusion Act of 1999, along with my colleagues Senators Moynihan and Schumer. Mr. President, survivors of the Holocaust who had assets withheld from them by Swiss banks or others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement between the banks and the survivor's attorneys in August 1998. The settlement was for $1.25 billion for survivors worldwide. This settlement will finally return the assets to survivors more than fifty years after they first entrusted them to the banks. In addition to these recipients, there are survivors who are needy and have received one-time payments from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the Swiss government. In both cases, any payment from the Swiss banks or other similar sources like this, should be excluded from taxation because they are receiving back what was rightfully theirs to begin with. The sum total of payments coming to the needy Holocaust survivors in the United States from this fund is $31.4 million. Moreover, funds are being established by banks and corporations in France, Austria, Italy, and Germany to compensate claimants for wrongfully held bank deposits, insurance policies, slave labor, and other losses. Survivors who have sued banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers which profited from slave labor during the Holocaust, did so because there was no other way for them to seek justice. Deprived of their assets, or those of their families for over fifty years, survivors fought unsuccessfully until now to receive what belonged to them. With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, there is little time for debate over these payments which will ease life for the survivors in their final years. To tax them for the long overdue receipt of assets would be wrong and immoral. What these survivors will receive from the various funds will be money that is rightfully theirs in the first place. The survivors of man's greatest inhumanity to man deserve justice. After escaping death at the hands of the Nazis, they were again victimized by European bankers and insurers. Those who endured the tortures of slave labor have never been compensated for their servitude to the Nazis. Now that they have received some measure of justice, let us not make them wait any longer for what is rightfully theirs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to streamline the process our farmers follow when filing paper work with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently, when farmers are required to fill out USDA paper work, they are required to travel to their local USDA county offices, complete the paper work, wait in long lines and file these documents in paper form. This process is very inefficient and time consuming. The bill that I introduce today simply requires USDA to develop a system for farmers to access and file this paper work over the internet. This legislation entitled the ``Freedom to E-file Act'' simply makes good common sense. As our society has become more technologically advanced so have our farmers. In fact, a 1998 Novartis survey found that over 72 percent of all farmers with 500 acres or more had personal computers. Overall, over fifty percent of all farmers surveyed had computers. Our agriculturalists use computers not only for financial management and market information but for sophisticated precision agriculture management systems. These sophisticated small business owners could easily file necessary farm program paperwork from their homes and offices if only this option was available. Farmers are often frustrated with the long lines at county USDA offices, especially during their most hectic times such as harvest season. Our nation's farmers are clearly overburdened by government- required paperwork. This bill is the first step in the right direction toward regulatory reform for our U.S. food producers. This legislation is budget neutral and USDA would implement the bill using existing funds. I want to recognize and commend my colleague, Congressman Ray LaHood, for championing the companion to this bill in the House of Representatives. This bill should enjoy bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill important to our nation's farmers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Holocaust Era Assets Tax Exclusion Act of 1999, along with my colleagues Senators Moynihan and Schumer. Mr. President, survivors of the Holocaust who had assets withheld from them by Swiss banks or others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement between the banks and the survivor's attorneys in August 1998. The settlement was for $1.25 billion for survivors worldwide. This settlement will finally return the assets to survivors more than fifty years after they first entrusted them to the banks. In addition to these recipients, there are survivors who are needy and have received one-time payments from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the Swiss government. In both cases, any payment from the Swiss banks or other similar sources like this, should be excluded from taxation because they are receiving back what was rightfully theirs to begin with. The sum total of payments coming to the needy Holocaust survivors in the United States from this fund is $31.4 million. Moreover, funds are being established by banks and corporations in France, Austria, Italy, and Germany to compensate claimants for wrongfully held bank deposits, insurance policies, slave labor, and other losses. Survivors who have sued banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers which profited from slave labor during the Holocaust, did so because there was no other way for them to seek justice. Deprived of their assets, or those of their families for over fifty years, survivors fought unsuccessfully until now to receive what belonged to them. With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, there is little time for debate over these payments which will ease life for the survivors in their final years. To tax them for the long overdue receipt of assets would be wrong and immoral. What these survivors will receive from the various funds will be money that is rightfully theirs in the first place. The survivors of man's greatest inhumanity to man deserve justice. After escaping death at the hands of the Nazis, they were again victimized by European bankers and insurers. Those who endured the tortures of slave labor have never been compensated for their servitude to the Nazis. Now that they have received some measure of justice, let us not make them wait any longer for what is rightfully theirs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a sense of the Senate amendment to the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 20. As we prepare to work on this year's federal budget, everyone seems to be talking about what we should and should not do with the Social Security trust funds. There is a growing understanding that the federal government mixes the revenues of the Social Security trust fund in with the revenues of the general fund in order to cover-up continuing annual deficits. What many people may not know is that the government does the same thing with over 150 other trust funds, mixing them all in with the general fund. The ``surpluses'' now being talked about are entirely fictitious, the result of misleading and deceptive accounting practices. The ``surpluses'' disappear once borrowing from the Social Security trust funds ($121.9 billion in the current fiscal year) and borrowing from all other trust funds ($67.9 billion in the current fiscal year) are subtracted. That's why the national debt will rise by $395.6 billion between FY 1998 and FY 2004. I believe it is wrong for our government to use deceptive accounting practices. I believe it is wrong to encourage the perception that we are running annual surpluses, when in fact we are continuing to run annual deficits and continuing to add to the national debt. Anyone in the private sector who engaged in similar practices would, by our own laws, be subjected to prosecution and imprisonment. Why do we allow the government to use accounting shell games that would be illegal anywhere else? To provide a more accurate picture of our country's financial situation to the American people, I have this amendment to the Budget Resolution. This Sense of the Senate amendment states that the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office should separate the revenues of all government trust funds from the general fund and report the budget deficit or surplus when all trust funds are excluded. This is an incremental first step toward changing the way Congress and the President budget and spend taxpayer money. I ask for your support in this effort to provide truthful budget numbers to the American people. This amendment is, in my judgment, completely non-partisan. It makes no pre-judgments about tax cuts or spending increases. Instead, it simply seeks to expose a deceptive accounting practice long used by our federal government. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of my Sense of the Senate amendment to the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 20. This amendment will require truth-in-budgeting with respect to the on-budget trust funds. There is a growing understanding that the federal government mixes the revenues of the Social Security trust fund in with the revenues of the general fund in order to cover-up continuing annual deficits. What many people may not know is that the government does the same thing with over 150 other trust funds, mixing them all in with the general fund. I believe it is wrong for our government to use deceptive accounting practices. I believe it is wrong to encourage the perception that we are running annual surpluses, when in fact we are continuing to run annual deficits and continuing to add to the national debt. Anyone in the private sector who engaged in similar practices would, by our own laws, be subjected to prosecution and imprisonment. Why do we allow the government to use accounting shell games that would be illegal anywhere else? To provide a more accurate picture of our country's financial situation to the American people, I have offered this amendment to the Budget Resolution. This Sense of the Senate amendment states that the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office should separate the revenues of all government trust funds from the general fund and report the budget deficit or surplus when all trust funds are excluded. I ask for your support in this effort to provide truthful budget numbers to the American people. This amendment is, in my judgement, completely non-partisan. It makes no pre-judgements about tax cuts or spending increases. Instead, it simply seeks to expose a deceptive accounting practice long used by our federal government.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, school violence is a horrible, senseless tragedy that must not continue. Last year's horrific shootings in Jonesboro, AR; Pakucah, KY; Pearl, MS; Richmond, VA; and Edinboro, PA, were meaningless acts of violence and should never have occurred. That's why I wholeheartedly support and have cosponsored National School Violence Victims Memorial Day. This important resolution recognizes victims of school violence and encourages school administrators to conduct programs on March 24 designed to help prevent further occurrences of school violence. Mr. President, the statistics on school violence are truly frightening. According to the National School Safety Center, there have been 225 school-associated violent deaths between July 1992 and June 1998. What is going on in our classrooms that our Nation's youth feel like the only way to resolve problems is through a gun? This resolution recognizes victims of school violence and says to our children, that there is a better way to resolve problems. By focusing community efforts on teaching students peaceful alternatives to conflict, we can equip our children to stop violent tendencies before they get out of control. This resolution is a step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and join me in encouraging local school districts and administrators to use their resources on violence prevention programs. All of us--teachers, administrators, parents--must work together to show our children peaceful alternatives before violence erupts in our schools again.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator Abraham's amendment to ban our Government from continuing to plunder the Social Security trust funds. For many years, our Government has taken all of the money that goes into the Social Security trust funds, taken every cent and spent it on other programs. The fact of the matter is, there is now no money in the Social Security trust fund. There is just a pile of IOUs, and those IOUs do our country no good when we hit 2013 and Social Security taxes are insufficient to pay current benefits. Come 2013, no matter what the balance of IOUs is in the Social Security trust fund, we are either going to have to cut benefits or raise taxes or dramatically increase our Government's borrowings in order to pay Social Security benefits. I applaud Senator Domenici, Senator Abraham, and those who are working to ban our Government from plundering the Social Security trust fund. I want to show the Senate what the President's budget projections are for the next few years and to raise some questions about those projections. The President claims the budget will be in surplus through the year 2004 and is suggesting in the current fiscal year we will have a $79.3 billion surplus; next year, $117 billion; rising to a surplus of $207 billion in 2004. There is a problem with this. As some may have noticed, our national debt is continuing to grow despite these proposed budget surpluses. In fact, if you look at the appendix to President Clinton's budget, which he claims is going to be in surplus from now until 2004, if you look in the back, you will find that our national debt is going to continue to rise. I ask the Members of this body, Does it make any sense for our national debt to continue to rise when we have surpluses? How can our national debt rise if we have surpluses? Well, the answer to that question is, we do not really have surpluses. They are borrowing all of this money from the Social Security trust fund. If you look back in history, we have borrowed $1.67 trillion from Government trust funds. And to date, as of the end of the last fiscal year, our Government had borrowed $730 billion from the Social Security trust fund. All that money that people all across the country have been paying for years in Social Security taxes, they knew some of it was going out to pay current benefits, but they also thought some of it was being set aside in a trust fund. It turns out they have plundered that trust fund. There is no money in it except a bunch of IOUs. And when we borrow from these trust funds, it gets added to our national debt. So right now, people in this country are being told that we are running surpluses, but what they are not being told is that we are continuing to borrow from Social Security and other trust funds and that we are digging our hole deeper. We are making the national debt worse. These are the amounts the President proposes to continue borrowing from the Social Security trust fund in his budget which makes projections out through 2004. This year he proposes borrowing $121 billion from the Social Security trust fund and $67 billion from other trust funds. That is the source of the surplus they have. But when you take that out, if you had an honest accounting, if the Government were not allowed to use deceptive accounting practices, it would be forced to show that, in fact, there is an ongoing deficit. In any case, I applaud Senator Abraham. He is absolutely on the right track. We need to protect the Social Security trust fund. That Social Security trust fund lockbox idea that Senator Domenici has worked on with many others is worthy of our pursuit. This is the only plan out there that will protect 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund. I come from a banking background. For many years I worked in banking in my home State of Illinois. There is nothing more abhorrent to me than the notion of a trust fund being managed by the Government that is being raided by the Government. In our law in the private sector, the highest burden is imposed upon those who manage trust funds. Anybody who plundered a trust fund in the private sector would be sent off to prison. Any private employer in the United States who reached into their employees' pension fund and took all that money out and spent it on other programs would, under Congress' own laws, go to jail. It is high time that Congress stop itself from raiding the Nation's pension funds, from raiding Social Security, and instead try to save the money that is going in there; do not spend it on other programs; do not touch it but treat it like a real trust fund. And I am delighted that we have made this effort. I think it will be a great fundamental breakthrough. I applaud Senator Domenici and look forward to working with the rest of the Members of the Senate to achieve this very important goal. Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, yes, I would like to speak to Senator Abraham's amendment.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, a tragic accident occurred in Bourbonnais, Illinois on Monday night when an Amtrak passenger train, the City of New Orleans, collided with a tractor trailer carrying steel rods. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, a crew of 18 people and 196 passengers were aboard the City of New Orleans when the accident occurred. Eleven people lost their lives in the accident, NTSB officials report. I wish to convey my deepest sympathy to the families of the victims and all others who have been touched by this tragedy. Illinois grieves with you. I would also like to recognize the dedication of the local and State officials and citizens who have prevented this tragedy from becoming even worse. Local citizens worked through the night and into the early morning to locate victims, free them from the wreckage, and treat their injuries. Public safety officials from Bourbonnais, and from the communities and counties surrounding it, worked above and beyond the call of duty to save lives, rescue survivors, and prevent further harm from occurring. Additionally, Federal officials from the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Highway Administration, the Railroad Administration, and Health and Human Services have traveled to Illinois to lend their expertise in the aftermath of this horrible accident. And finally, nonprofit organizations like the American Red Cross have also served the victims, families, and friends associated with this accident. At times like this we remember the fragility of human life, and recognize the magnanimity of the human spirit. We commend the many volunteers and officials involved with the city of New Orleans accident. Their dedication to the welfare of those injured will be remembered in perpetuity.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 5, a resolution expressing opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting this resolution We cannot allow the work of the past several years to be swept away by unilateral acts such as that threatened by Yasser Arafat. President Arafat has threatened to declare a Palestinian state by May 4, 1999 if there is no further progress in the Peace Process. Mr. President, this act, in defiance of the Oslo Peace agreements signed by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Mr. Arafat, can only destabilize the region. It would no doubt precipitate further acts and the entire Peace Process, as precarious as it is, could be shattered. The only true path to peace is through negotiation with Israel. There is no other way to achieve a satisfactory conclusion to this one- hundred-year conflict. With the passage of this resolution Congress sends the message that if Yasser Arafat declares a Palestinian state on May 4, the United States should not recognize the validity of the declaration and Congress will strongly oppose it. Mr. President, if there is to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it will be accomplished through peaceful negotiations between the two parties, not through unilateral acts.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. As a freshman Senator, I am saddened that the first issue I confront in my service to the people of Illinois is the impeachment of a President of the United States. It is difficult to imagine a task less welcome and more awesome to me. As a newly elected Senator, I have barely begun to know the Senate, my colleagues, our rules and procedures, our precedents, or, finally, even our duty. I have watched you all so carefully--looking for examples, and guidance-- and wondering at the gravity of these days. On a personal note, before I begin, I want to thank those on both sides of the aisle--Senators who, in difficult days, have been so gracious to a newcomer. Thank you for taking the time, and making the effort, to welcome the newest among you. Through these hours, I have developed a deep respect for my new colleagues, for the Senate as an institution, and for the Constitution that has anchored our Republic for over two hundred years. I thank God for the wisdom of the Framers, and their ability to construct enduring institutions that allow us to confront, peacefully, the question of whether our President should be removed from office. We now come to the conclusion of this Constitutional process, itself an extraordinary example of the rule of law that makes our nation the envy of the world. The people of Illinois have entrusted me with the duty to uphold the Constitution, a duty I share with all of you. In addition, we share the responsibility of abiding by the separate oath which we took in this proceeding to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.'' As a trier of fact and law, I find that the President has committed perjury and obstruction of justice as charged in the two Articles of Impeachment, and that those offenses constitute ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I will vote for conviction on both counts. I reach this decision after detailed examination of the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, Senate precedents, and the impeachment clause of the Constitution. The Standard of Proof The initial decision I made was to determine the appropriate burden of proof. Failure to impose a burden of proof on the House Managers would severely weaken the Presidency, a result the Founders feared and sought to avoid. The precedents of the Senate make it clear that there is no single standard that each of us must apply. The President has argued that we should apply the criminal standard of ``proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'' In recent impeachment trials of federal judges, a number of Senators also argued that conviction was only appropriate if the proof met this standard. Some commentators have suggested that Senators could use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard typically applied in civil cases, or some standard in between. I have concluded that, to support a conviction, allegations must be proven by ``clear and convincing'' evidence. The criminal standard is not warranted, because the relief in this instance, i.e., the removal of the President, is not punitive, but remedial. In contrast, the civil standard would place the Presidency at too great a risk. The ``clear and convincing'' evidence standard strikes a prudent balance, providing sufficient protection for the authority of the Presidency and the expression of popular will represented by the President's election, while avoiding the risk of a President remaining in office despite clear and convincing evidence of impeachable offenses. Article I: Perjury Before A Federal Grand Jury The House has presented clear and convincing evidence that the President committed perjury when he testified before a Federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. On January 17, 1998, President Clinton testified in a civil deposition in the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit, after the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that a civil suit against a sitting President could proceed. After the deposition, the Independent Counsel secured the approval of the Attorney General, and the three-judge Federal court which superintends the Independent Counsel law, to expand his jurisdiction to inquire into whether the President testified truthfully in his deposition. On August 17, 1998, the President, as the target of the investigation testified by video to a Federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. The President's deposition testimony in the Jones case was false in numerous respects, and his grand jury statements that he had sought to be completely truthful in his deposition testimony cannot be accurate. [Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, H. Doc. 105-311, pp. 458-59] The falsehoods are of such a quantity and kind that a reasonable reading of the evidence suggests the President had to know at the time he gave his deposition in the Jones case that he was not being truthful. His testimony to the grand jury that he intended to be truthful at his deposition is false. Example: the President had testified in his deposition that he believed that, in the preceding two weeks, no one had reported to him any conversations with Ms. Lewinsky about the Jones suit. [Jones Deposition of President Clinton, 1/17/98, S. Doc. 106-3, Vol. 22, p. 22] In testifying to the grand jury that he was truthful in his deposition, the President reaffirmed this portion of his deposition testimony. [Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 458] We know, however, that Vernon Jordan had, within the two weeks prior to the President's deposition, told the President that Ms. Lewinsky had signed her affidavit. [Deposition Testimony of Vernon Jordan, 2/2/99, 145 Congressional Record S1241 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1999)] The President's grand jury testimony was material to the issue of whether the President had sought to influence the content of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and thereby obstruct justice. The President again committed perjury before the Federal grand jury when he tried to explain why he made a series of false statements to his secretary, Betty Currie, on two separate occasions. At his deposition, the President was questioned about Ms. Lewinsky. The President attempted to employ Ms. Currie as an alibi witness. In the wake of the deposition, the President asked Ms. Currie to come to the office on a Sunday. Once there, the President asked Ms. Currie a series of leading questions concerning her recollection of events regarding Ms. Lewinsky. [Grand Jury Testimony of Betty Currie, 1/7/98, H. Doc. 105-316, pp. 559-60] A few days later, the President again queried Ms. Currie with leading questions. [Id. at p. 561] When questioned during his grand jury testimony about the series of leading questions he had directed to Ms. Currie, the President responded: ``I was trying to figure out what the facts were. I was trying to remember.'' [Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/ 98, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 591] He also claimed that he was only trying to ``ascertain what the facts were, trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was.'' [Id. at p. 593] While Ms. Currie would not say she felt pressured by the President, she did testify that she believed that the President was seeking her agreement with those statements. [Grand Jury Testimony of Betty Currie, 1/7/98, H. Doc. 105-316, p. 559] It is unreasonable to conclude that the President was trying to refresh his recollection by making patently false statements to Ms. Currie, in the days immediately following his deposition for the Jones case. Ms. Curry could not possibly have known the answers to some of the President's ``questions,'' and the President clearly already knew the answers to others. We took an oath to do impartial justice. We did not take an oath to check our common sense at the door of this Chamber. The President's proffered explanation of the questions he directed to Ms. Currie defies common sense. I believe he sought, instead, to influence Ms. Currie's anticipated testimony by imparting to Ms. Currie his preferred version of the events. His false explanation was material to the grand jury's inquiry and constitutes perjury. The President also committed perjury when he testified and then reiterated before the Federal grand jury, in answer to a question about false accounts he gave to his aides regarding Ms. Lewinsky, that ``I said to them things that were true.'' [Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, p. 106, H. Doc. 105-311, pp. 557-58] In fact, the President said to his aides things that were false. Presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal testified in his Senate deposition that the President had told him that Ms. Lewinsky had threatened him, and that she was called ``the stalker.'' [Deposition Testimony of Sidney Blumenthal, 2/3/99, 145 Congressional Record S1301 (daily ed. Feb. 6, 1999)] Mr. Blumenthal testified he now knows that the President lied to him. [Id. at S1302] The President knew what he said to Mr. Blumenthal was false because the President knew the facts. The one fact the President did not know was that Ms. Lewinsky would produce DNA evidence that would provide incontrovertible physical evidence to contradict him. The President's statements before a Federal grand jury regarding accounts he gave to his aides of Ms. Lewinsky were false, and the falsehoods were material to the grand jury's investigation into whether the President had testified falsely in the Jones deposition. Article II: obstruction of justice The House has presented clear and convincing evidence that President Clinton obstructed justice by engaging in a course of conduct designed to impede, cover up, and conceal evidence and testimony related to the Federal civil rights action brought against him. The evidence shows that the President improperly influenced Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the Jones suit. I believe that the only version of the evidence that makes sense is that offered by the House. Thus, I conclude that the President influenced the entire process that led to the filing of the false affidavit, from its inception to its conclusion. He did so through direct conversations with Ms. Lewinsky, and through his close friend, Mr. Jordan, who was able to monitor the process through an attorney that he, Mr. Jordan, procured for Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Lewinsky admitted that on December 17, 1997, the President informed her by telephone at 2 a.m. that she was on the witness list in the Jones case, and suggested that she might avoid testifying by filing an affidavit. [Deposition Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 2/1/99, 145 Congressional Record S1218 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1999)] And the President told Ms. Lewinsky to call Betty Currie if she was subpoenaed. [Id.] The President's assertion that he thought Ms. Lewinsky could have avoided testifying by filing a truthful affidavit is unbelievable. I believe that the President knew that a truthful affidavit by Ms. Lewinsky would have ensured that she would have been called as a deposition witness, and that her subsequent truthful testimony would have been legally damaging to the President. In fact, in the very conversation in which the President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky file an affidavit, they discussed the cover stories they could use to avoid public knowledge of the truth. [Id. at S1219] Vernon Jordan testified in his Senate deposition that he ``was acting on behalf of the President to get Ms. Lewinsky a job.'' [Deposition Testimony of Vernon Jordan, 2/2/99, 145 Congressional Record S1293 (daily ed. Feb. 6, 1999)] Mr. Jordan confirmed in the deposition that ``The President was obviously interested in her job search.'' [Id. at S1314] It was Mr. Jordan --one of the President's closest friends--whom Ms. Lewinsky called when she was subpoenaed. Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and arranged a lawyer for her. [Deposition Testimony of Vernon Jordan, 2/2/99, 145 Congressional Record S1234-36 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1999)] Mr. Jordan delivered Ms. Lewinsky to her lawyer's office. [Id. at S1238] Mr. Jordan monitored the drafting and content of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. [Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 920] Ms. Lewinsky herself delivered a copy of her first signed affidavit to Mr. Jordan's office. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and Mr. Jordan conferred about the contents of the affidavit and agreed to delete one portion inserted by her lawyer and make other changes. [Id. at pp. 921-22, 1229-30 (Exhibit 3)] Mr. Jordan kept the President informed throughout the affidavit- drafting process. He personally notified the President that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the false affidavit. [Deposition Testimony of Vernon Jordan, 2/2/99, 145 Congressional Record S1241 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1999)] The evidence also clearly and convincingly demonstrates that after Ms. Lewinsky's name appeared on the witness list in the Jones case, the President, through Mr. Jordan, provided intensified assistance to Ms. Lewinsky in finding a job in order to encourage her to file the false affidavit. Mr. Jordan accepted responsibility for the job search and has admitted that he and Ms. Lewinsky discussed both the job search and her affidavit in most conversations. [Id.] Mr. Jordan attempted to separate each aspect of his work with Ms. Lewinsky. He testified that ``[t]he affidavit was over here. The job was over here.'' [Id.] Whatever Mr. Jordan's belief, it cannot have been lost on Ms. Lewinsky that she had a very prominent and powerful lawyer soliciting job offers for her at the same time she was being asked to help that lawyer's friend, the President, who had first suggested that she file an affidavit. On the day after Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit, Mr. Jordan personally called the CEO of a Fortune 500 company to secure a job for her, a job she was offered on the subsequent day. [Id. at S1241-42] On the day that Ms. Lewinsky received the job offer, Mr. Jordan called the President, through Ms. Currie, and left the message ``mission accomplished.'' [Grand Jury Testimony of Vernon Jordan, 5/28/98, S. Doc. 106-3, p. 1898] The President's own testimony in his deposition for the Jones case followed exactly the false claims of Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit. While the President's lawyers encouraged the perception that this convergence was a coincidence, I do not buy it. The evidence is clear and convincing that the President continued to involve Ms. Currie in his lies and obfuscation. Ms. Lewinsky testified that on December 28, 1997, she met with President Clinton and informed him that she had been subpoenaed, and that the subpoena required her to produce all gifts she had received from the President. She testified that the subpoena specifically requested a hat pin, which alarmed her. [Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 852] The President responded that the subpoena ``concerned'' him. [Id. at p. 872] When Ms. Lewinsky asked him what she should do in response to the subpoena for the gifts, the President answered, ``I don't know,'' or ``Let me think about that.'' [Id.] He never gave the only appropriate answer, which was to comply. Ms. Lewinsky testified that later that same day, Ms. Currie telephoned her, saying, ``I understand that you have something for me,'' or ``the President said that you have something to give me.'' [Id. at pp. 874-75] Ms. Currie had an unclear memory about this incident, but said that ``the best [she] remembered,'' Ms. Lewinsky called her. [Grand Jury Testimony of Betty Currie, 5/6/98, H. Doc. 105- 316, p. 581] Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that Ms. Currie instigated the retrieval of the gifts is credible and convincing. In contrast, Ms. Currie's testimony that Ms. Lewinsky instigated the retrieval is not persuasive. I do not believe that the President's personal secretary would have acted upon a request from Ms. Lewinsky to retrieve the gifts without asking the reason for such an exchange or informing the President of the request. It is too bizarre that she would simply pick up a box of gifts and deposit them under her bed. It defies a common-sense reading of the evidence and the evidentiary narrative. The evidence is also clear and convincing that the President obstructed justice by coaching Ms. Currie, a potential witness in the Jones case, to provide false testimony in the Jones case, and by arranging for the concealment of gifts subpoenaed by the Jones lawyers. On Saturday, January 17, 1998, a few hours after completing his own deposition in the Jones case, the President called Ms. Currie and asked her to come to the White House on Sunday, January 18, 1998. [Id. at p. 558] The President's assertions and leading questions to Ms. Currie on January 18 and January 20 or 21, 1998, were indisputably false. The President knew that Ms. Currie was a potential witness when he made these false statements to her. In his deposition in the Jones case, the President brought Ms. Currie's name up, without prompting, in at least sixteen different answers to questions, clearly anticipating and inviting the Jones attorneys to subpoena her to back up his account. I am unable to conclude that the President was attempting to ``refresh his recollections'' by calling Ms. Currie and requesting her to come to the White House on a weekend and making false statements to her. Simple common sense tells us that he was letting her know what he had said in his deposition and that he was hoping that she would later corroborate his false account. High crimes and misdemeanors Although I have determined that the House has proven the acts alleged in both Articles of Impeachment by clear and convincing evidence, the inquiry does not end here. I must also consider whether the acts constitute ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' as required by the Constitution. This has been a singularly difficult question for this body, but I conclude that the President's offenses rise to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' within the meaning of the Constitution. The Framers of our Constitution provide that the Senate can only convict a President for ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The Framers relied, in part, on William Blackstone for their understanding of the common law they inherited from England. In the fourth book of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone addressed the criminal law. He distinguished between crimes that ``more directly infringe the rights of the public or commonwealth, taken in its collective capacity,'' and ``those which in a more peculiar manner injure individuals or private subjects.'' [IV William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 74, 176 (special ed., 1983)] Within the latter category, Blackstone included crimes such as murder, burglary, and arson. The former category of ``public'' crimes included offenses that were counted as ``offenses against the public justice.'' Blackstone included within this category the crimes of perjury and bribery side-by-side. [Id. at 127, 136-39] Blackstone's formulation equating perjury and bribery as ``public'' offenses suggests that, within the definition of the Constitution, perjury may also be a high crime and misdemeanor. Because perjury, at its core, involves an effort to obstruct justice, other acts that obstruct justice may very well be considered ``public'' offenses as the Framers would have understood them. Indeed, Blackstone writes that ``impediments of justice'' are ``high misprisions'' and ``contempts'' of the King's courts. [Id. at 126-28] The intent of the Framers and subsequent interpretation of this clause show that impeachment and conviction of the President is a Constitutional remedy for serious offenses against our system of government. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, explained that impeachable offenses, ``relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself,'' and arise ``from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Certainly, perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice are offenses against the American system of government, as they strike at the rule of law itself. These acts subvert the truth-seeking process that is the very essence and foundation of the judicial branch. These acts, when committed by a President, are a repudiation of our judicial system by the Chief Executive of the country, undermining the checks and balances and disturbing the delicate balance between the branches of the Federal government that is at the heart of our Constitutional form of government. The President's counsel attempted to diminish the severity of the crimes of perjury before a Federal grand jury and obstruction of justice. But the Founding Fathers understood that these crimes are offenses against the public trust. Perjury was among the few offenses outlawed by statute by the First Congress, in 1790. And today, perjury is punishable by up to five years imprisonment in a federal penitentiary. [18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1621-23] The Supreme Court, in a 1976 plurality opinion, wrote, ``[p]erjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings.'' [United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576] We do not need to decide whether the President's perjury before the grand jury would have risen to the level of a ``high crime and misdemeanor'' had the target of the grand jury been someone other than the President, nor do we need to decide whether a President's perjury in a civil trial in and of itself rises to the level of an impeachable offense. I have reservations about considering such acts ``high crimes'' or ``high misdemeanors.'' But where, as here, the President committed perjury in a Federal grand jury investigation of which he was the target, I am convinced that his acts fall into the category that warrants removal from office. Further support for this conclusion comes from Senate precedent in the impeachment, conviction, and removal from office of two Federal judges in the 1980s--Walter Nixon and Alcee Hastings. Judge Nixon was impeached and convicted for lying to a grand jury that was investigating him, and Judge Hastings was impeached and convicted for making numerous false statements under oath in testimony in his own criminal trial. Obstruction of justice is particularly serious. Two federal criminal statutes, Sections 1503 and 1512 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, specifically prohibit corruptly influencing or obstructing the due administration of justice or the testimony of a person in an official proceeding. Federal appellate courts have applied these statutes to individuals who provide misleading stories to a potential witness without explicitly asking the witness to lie. For example, in 1988, a Federal appellate court upheld the conviction of an individual for attempting to influence a witness even though that witness was not scheduled to testify before the grand jury nor ever appeared before a grand jury. The court held that a conviction under Section 1503 is appropriate so long as there is a possibility that the target of the defendant's activities will be called upon to testify in an official proceeding. [United States v. Shannon 836 F. 2d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir. 1988)] The Supreme Court has called the President's responsibility to enforce the laws, ``the Chief Executive's most important Constitutional duty.'' [Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 577 (1992)] A President who obstructs the very laws he is called upon to enforce has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as set out in the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution. Impartial Justice Some argue that the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, should allow public opinion polls to influence its judgment, claiming that these proceedings are not judicial, but political in nature. I believe the Constitution, the intent of the Framers, and the Senate's own impeachment procedures show that when the Senate convenes to fulfill its obligation to ``try all impeachments,'' as Article I of the Constitution prescribes, it takes on a judicial role quite distinct from its normal legislative proceedings. The Constitution also states, in Article III, that ``the trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury. . .,'' implying that an impeachment trial is a trial similar to all others. When a President stands accused, the Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside, explicitly introducing the judicial branch into the trial by the Senate. And Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, discusses ``the judicial character of the Senate'' when it meets as ``a court for the trial of impeachments.'' We are required to take a special oath for impeachments, above and beyond our oath of office, to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.'' What can this oath mean if it does not place on us a special, judicial burden, unique among our Senatorial duties, to apply rules of impartiality and independence in pursuit of a verdict that is just? If an innocent President can be convicted, or a guilty President can be acquitted, even in part because of the polls that purport to reflect the will of the moment, then we violate our Constitutional duty and assault the very foundations of our system of justice. Carved into the West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington are four simple words: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Standing watch in front of that building is a statue of Justice, blindfolded because justice must be blind. Even the President must respect the laws of the land. To the extent that we allow the popularity or unpopularity of a particular President to inform our votes for either conviction or acquittal, we undermine the principle of ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' and we chip away at the blindfold that covers the eyes of Justice. Conclusion As a trier of fact and law, I find that the President has committed perjury and obstructed justice as charged in the two Articles of Impeachment, and that those offenses constitute ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I will vote to convict on both counts. For me, this is not an easy verdict to reach, and comes after great deliberation. I am 38 years old. Today is my 38th day as a Senator. Those 38 days feel like they have lasted my entire life. As a freshman, I have had to confront, very suddenly, difficult truths that at the very least have challenged the idealism that propelled me here in the first place. But through the din of argument and counter-argument, it has occurred to me that the President's acts, however serious, are not nearly as consequential as our response. I have listened to those who assert that perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice are not removable offenses--or that if they are, removal of a President, in this time, is too disruptive to contemplate. And truly, the call to do nothing is seductive. I hear it, too. We are so comfortable--so prosperous--that it is difficult to be bothered with unpleasantness. But as the youngest member of this body, I believe we must hold firm to the oldest truths. The material blessings of peace and prosperity are but the fruit of liberty that does not come without a price --a liberty sustained, only and finally, by the rule of law, and those willing to defend it. Our commitment to impartial justice, now and forever, is an abstraction more profound and precious than a soaring Dow and a plummeting deficit. I vote as I do because I will not stand for the proposition that a President can, with premeditation and deliberation, obstruct justice and commit perjury before a grand jury. It cannot be.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today I want to recognize National Appreciation Day for Catholic Schools, a day to acknowledge the important and valuable contributions Catholic schools make to our nation's children, to local communities, and to the nation. Nationally, there are over 7.6 million students in 8,200 Catholic schools. In my home state of Illinois, there are over 215,000 students in 598 Catholic schools. In addition, I am a product of Catholic education, having attended Catholic schools for both elementary and high school. Last year, 40 Catholic secondary schools were awarded the Excellence in Education Award, the nation's highest honor in education, by the U.S. Department of Education. In my home state, Boyland Catholic High School in Rockford, Illinois, was awarded the Excellence in Education Award for outstanding educational achievement. Two students from St. Patrick School in Ottawa, Illinois, Justyna and Alexsandra Ratajczak, wrote me about how much they enjoy going to Catholic school. Justyna wrote that St. Patrick School ``is like a second home for me and I can not imagine my world without it.'' This girl's love of school testifies to the fact that Catholic schools are doing something right. Mr. President, I applaud Catholic schools and all their outstanding teachers for their high success rate among students and thank them for their important contribution to educating America's youth.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Dick Durbin, my distinguished colleague from Illinois, in introducing S. Res. 23, commending Michael Jordan on his retirement from the Chicago Bulls and the National Basketball Association. For thirteen years, Michael Jordan has entertained the people of Chicago with his performance on the basketball court. The six championships he brought to Chicago have been a great source of pride and unity for the citizens of Illinois. His accomplishments are many, including ten scoring titles, five Most Valuable Player awards, and twelve All-Star Game appearances. He was also the first player to win the MVP and Defensive Player of the Year awards in the same year, which he did in 1988. In addition, he was named the NBA's Rookie of the Year in the 1984-85 season. I offer my congratulations to Michael Jordan on all of his accomplishments, and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. I thank the Senate for its swift passage of this resolution.