J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to former U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, who served Nebraska and our Nation with honor, dignity and ability for 22 years in the U.S. Senate, from 1954 to 1976. I join my colleagues in mourning the passing of Roman Hruska. Roman was a man who embodied all the positive traits of a good public servant. He was selfless, a man of integrity and character, and someone who was committed to helping others. I had the pleasure of serving with Roman during his entire service in the U.S. Senate. He and I were both Members of the class of 1954. It is my hope that others will be inspired by Roman's commitment to public service and helping others. He was a good man who will be missed by a large circle of friends in and out of the Senate.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, among the worst situations facing spouses, children, and families of members of the United States Armed Forces, is to be greeted by an official party, wearing their dress blue uniforms, announcing the grim news that their loved one has been killed or declared missing. On Sunday, September 14, 1997 nine families endured such an experience as the United States Air Force declared one of its C-141 Starlifter cargo planes, en route from Namibia to Ascension Island, was overdue and presumed to have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. At the same time, a German military plane was also declared missing in the same area, amid indications that the two planes had collided and crashed into the Atlantic. An extensive search was begun, during which only a few airplane seats, a few papers, some debris from the U.S. cargo plane, remnants of the German aircraft, and the body of one victim were recovered. No other remains were recovered, and no survivors were located. On Saturday, September 27, 1997 the search for the crewmen of the Air Force jet ended and all were declared dead. Mr. President, an investigation confirmed everyone's worst fears. In fact, on that fateful day--September 13, 1997--a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M collided with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter off the coast of Namibia, Africa. As a result of that mid-air collision nine United States Air Force Service members were killed. These are the rank, name, age, assignment, and hometowns of those killed: Staff Sergeant Stacy D. Bryant, 32, loadmaster, Providence, Rhode Island; Staff Sergeant Gary A. Bucknam, 25, flight engineer, Oakland, Maine; Captain Gregory M. Cindrich, 28, pilot, Byrans Road, Maryland; Airman 1st Class Justin R. Drager, 19, loadmaster, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Staff Sergeant Robert K. Evans, 31, flight engineer, Garrison, Kentucky; Captain Jason S. Ramsey, 27, pilot, South Boston, Virginia; Staff Sergeant Scott N. Roberts, 27, flight engineer, Library, Pennsylvania; Captain Peter C. Vallejo, 34, aircraft commander, Crestwood, New York; and Senior Airman Frankie L. Walker, 23, crew chief, Windber, Pennsylvania; At McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, families and members of the crewmen's squadron from the 305th Operation Group were trying to make sense of what happened. Monica Cindrich, wife of the pilot, had to explain to her 3 year-old son why his father would not be returning. On the day following the crash, Sharla Bucknam went alone to her son Andrew's third birthday party. Any Smart held out hope that her fiance, Captain Ramsey, would return for their wedding, planned for the following May. And Justin Drager's father, Larry, a retired Air Force Master Sergeant prayed for a miracle. It was his son's very first mission since the Air Force certified him as a loadmaster on the giant cargo plane that would take the 19-year-old from Colorado Springs to the faraway places he joined the military to see. At a memorial service at McGuire Air Force Base, the nine crew members were honored as heroes who gave their lives for a humanitarian mission. The plane was returning home to McGuire after delivering troops and 32,000 pounds of mine-clearing equipment to Namibia. As the chaplain called the names of each crew member in a final roll call, a squadron member answered ``Absent, sir.'' The crowd of more than 3,000 stood solemnly as a lone bugler played taps and three C-141s flew over in formation. Formal investigations by both the government of Germany and the United States Air Force found that the German military plane was flying at the wrong altitude. The two planes, occupying the same air space, at the same altitude, closed on each other at a combined speed of over 1,000 miles per hour. The two planes hit almost nose to nose. The German crew saw the U.S. plane about a second before impact and struggled for two-and-a-half minutes to regain control of the TU-154 as it crashed into the Atlantic. The German military transport was carrying 12 German marines, two of their spouses and 10 crew members. Unfortunately, there were no survivors. The German Air Force plane was en route from Germany to Cape Town, South Africa, where the marines were to have participated in a boat race marking the 75th anniversary of the South African Navy. The details concerning the crash are unsettling and I doubt anyone would want to die in the manner that the crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' did. While the German crew had about a one-and-one-half second warning that they were going to collide with another aircraft, the crew aboard the C-141 literally did not know what hit them. The cockpit voice recorder aboard the American aircraft chillingly captures the conversations of the ``MISSION REACH 4201'' crew as fate cruelly steers the two military transports toward a deadly collision. Reviewing the transcript shows that Captains Greg Cindrich and Peter Vallejo--the two pilots of the Starlifter--had no inclination that a collision was imminent until it was too late. The two officers were discussing topics such as Social Security and the exploration of Mars. The tape indicates that the crew survived for at least 13 seconds following the impact with the German transport. In those 13 seconds, the C-141 and crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' began hurtling toward the Atlantic Ocean. They spent the last 13 seconds of the flight, of their lives, strapping on oxygen masks and looking for flashlights to cope with a failed electrical system. Aviation experts have determined that it is possible that the nine doomed men may have actually survived for as long as 30-seconds before the C-141 exploded. For thirteen to 30 seconds, these men fought to survive, fought to right their plane, fought for their very lives. If thirteen to 30 seconds sounds like a short amount of time, I challenge anyone to try holding their hand over a burning match for that amount of time, let alone spend that amount of time aboard a multi-ton aircraft as it plummets toward the ocean. These men were able to contemplate for thirteen to 30 seconds that their aircraft was damaged and diving toward the ocean from an altitude of 35,000 feet. That was thirteen to 30 seconds that these men could have been thinking that no C-141 had successfully survived a crash landing in water. It was thirteen to 30 seconds for these men to realize that they were about to die. Somewhere between thirteen and thirty seconds after the collision, the C-141 of ``Mission Reach 4201'' exploded and what did not vaporize became debris that was spread on the surface of the ocean, or sunk to its cold and murky depths. Needless to say, rescuers and salvage operators never recovered much of the American aircraft or crew. The Air Force ultimately found a few parts of the airplanes and 15 pounds of human remains of such minute quantities that DNA testing had to be conducted to determine who was who. As a point of comparison, a bag of cement is approximately 20 pounds. You could have put the entire remains of nine adult men in a bag that is used to hold cement and have room left over. There were not enough remains left of any one of the crew members to afford their families the comfort of laying their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to rest. Instead, only mementos were placed in caskets and buried. Accident investigations conducted by the United States Air Force and the German Ministry of Defense both concluded that fault for the collision and deaths lay with the German crew, who not only filed an inaccurate flight plan, but were flying at the wrong altitude. The crew of the C-141 were operating appropriately, and were exactly where they were supposed to be when they met their untimely deaths. These nine men died through no fault or negligence of their own, the United States Air Force, or the government of the United States. The families of each of the nine victims have endured not only tremendous mental anguish and suffering, but significant financial losses, and understandably, they are seeking compensation from the German government. Sadly, despite the fact that this crash took place almost two-years-ago, the German government has still to make the first pfenning of compensation to any of the victims' families. I rise today to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution that calls upon the German government to make quick and generous compensation to these families. Just as this Body agreed by unanimous consent on March 23, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make humanitarian relief payments of up to $2 million to each of the families killed in Cavalese, Italy when a Marine Corps jet struck a ski gondola, we should go on the record as expecting equitably fair and expeditious relief for the families of our servicemen killed through the negligence of the German government. It gives me no pleasure to offer this resolution. The German government and people are unquestionably among the closest of allies and the best of friends. We stood side-by-side during the Cold War, facing down the Eastern threat; we are working side-by-side in the Balkans now; our economies are linked; and we value the strong relationship between our two nations. Nevertheless, the Federal Republic of Germany has an undeniable responsibility to make quick and generous compensation to the nine families who lost loved ones aboard ``MISSION REACH 4201'' and I have pledged to Monica Cindrich, the widow of Captain Gregory Cindrich and the mother of their four-year-old son, that I will do all within my power to bring not only compensation to her, but closure to this tragedy. Passing this sense of the Senate resolution will help do just that. Each of us gets into public service because we desire to help people, to do what is right, and to fight for fairness. This Sense of the Senate resolution allows us to achieve each of those goals. By securing compensation for the deaths of the nine men killed, we will unquestionably be helping their families; we will be making a stand for what is right by making a stand for our military families; and finally, we will be fighting for fairness. Just as our government has recognized our responsibility in the case of the Italian ski gondola incident, it is only fair that the German government recognize their responsibility and obligation in this matter. It is my hope that this resolution will pass with the support of an overwhelming majority of Senators. By voting for this provision, each of you will not only be sending an unmistakable message to the German government, but perhaps even more importantly, you will be signaling to our men and women in uniform that their elected officials will always stand by them.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, among the worst situations facing spouses, children, and families of members of the United States Armed Forces, is to be greeted by an official party, wearing their dress blue uniforms, announcing the grim news that their loved one has been killed or declared missing. On Sunday, September 14, 1997 nine families endured such an experience as the United States Air Force declared one of its C-141 Starlifter cargo planes, en route from Namibia to Ascension Island, was overdue and presumed to have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. At the same time, a German military plane was also declared missing in the same area, amid indications that the two planes had collided and crashed into the Atlantic. An extensive search was begun, during which only a few airplane seats, a few papers, some debris from the U.S. cargo plane, remnants of the German aircraft, and the body of one victim were recovered. No other remains were recovered, and no survivors were located. On Saturday, September 27, 1997 the search for the crewmen of the Air Force jet ended and all were declared dead. Mr. President, an investigation confirmed everyone's worst fears. In fact, on that fateful day--September 13, 1997--a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M collided with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter off the coast of Namibia, Africa. As a result of that mid-air collision nine United States Air Force Service members were killed. These are the rank, name, age, assignment, and hometowns of those killed: Staff Sergeant Stacy D. Bryant, 32, loadmaster, Providence, Rhode Island; Staff Sergeant Gary A. Bucknam, 25, flight engineer, Oakland, Maine; Captain Gregory M. Cindrich, 28, pilot, Byrans Road, Maryland; Airman 1st Class Justin R. Drager, 19, loadmaster, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Staff Sergeant Robert K. Evans, 31, flight engineer, Garrison, Kentucky; Captain Jason S. Ramsey, 27, pilot, South Boston, Virginia; Staff Sergeant Scott N. Roberts, 27, flight engineer, Library, Pennsylvania; Captain Peter C. Vallejo, 34, aircraft commander, Crestwood, New York; and Senior Airman Frankie L. Walker, 23, crew chief, Windber, Pennsylvania; At McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, families and members of the crewmen's squadron from the 305th Operation Group were trying to make sense of what happened. Monica Cindrich, wife of the pilot, had to explain to her 3 year-old son why his father would not be returning. On the day following the crash, Sharla Bucknam went alone to her son Andrew's third birthday party. Any Smart held out hope that her fiance, Captain Ramsey, would return for their wedding, planned for the following May. And Justin Drager's father, Larry, a retired Air Force Master Sergeant prayed for a miracle. It was his son's very first mission since the Air Force certified him as a loadmaster on the giant cargo plane that would take the 19-year-old from Colorado Springs to the faraway places he joined the military to see. At a memorial service at McGuire Air Force Base, the nine crew members were honored as heroes who gave their lives for a humanitarian mission. The plane was returning home to McGuire after delivering troops and 32,000 pounds of mine-clearing equipment to Namibia. As the chaplain called the names of each crew member in a final roll call, a squadron member answered ``Absent, sir.'' The crowd of more than 3,000 stood solemnly as a lone bugler played taps and three C-141s flew over in formation. Formal investigations by both the government of Germany and the United States Air Force found that the German military plane was flying at the wrong altitude. The two planes, occupying the same air space, at the same altitude, closed on each other at a combined speed of over 1,000 miles per hour. The two planes hit almost nose to nose. The German crew saw the U.S. plane about a second before impact and struggled for two-and-a-half minutes to regain control of the TU-154 as it crashed into the Atlantic. The German military transport was carrying 12 German marines, two of their spouses and 10 crew members. Unfortunately, there were no survivors. The German Air Force plane was en route from Germany to Cape Town, South Africa, where the marines were to have participated in a boat race marking the 75th anniversary of the South African Navy. The details concerning the crash are unsettling and I doubt anyone would want to die in the manner that the crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' did. While the German crew had about a one-and-one-half second warning that they were going to collide with another aircraft, the crew aboard the C-141 literally did not know what hit them. The cockpit voice recorder aboard the American aircraft chillingly captures the conversations of the ``MISSION REACH 4201'' crew as fate cruelly steers the two military transports toward a deadly collision. Reviewing the transcript shows that Captains Greg Cindrich and Peter Vallejo--the two pilots of the Starlifter--had no inclination that a collision was imminent until it was too late. The two officers were discussing topics such as Social Security and the exploration of Mars. The tape indicates that the crew survived for at least 13 seconds following the impact with the German transport. In those 13 seconds, the C-141 and crew of ``MISSION REACH 4201'' began hurtling toward the Atlantic Ocean. They spent the last 13 seconds of the flight, of their lives, strapping on oxygen masks and looking for flashlights to cope with a failed electrical system. Aviation experts have determined that it is possible that the nine doomed men may have actually survived for as long as 30-seconds before the C-141 exploded. For thirteen to 30 seconds, these men fought to survive, fought to right their plane, fought for their very lives. If thirteen to 30 seconds sounds like a short amount of time, I challenge anyone to try holding their hand over a burning match for that amount of time, let alone spend that amount of time aboard a multi-ton aircraft as it plummets toward the ocean. These men were able to contemplate for thirteen to 30 seconds that their aircraft was damaged and diving toward the ocean from an altitude of 35,000 feet. That was thirteen to 30 seconds that these men could have been thinking that no C-141 had successfully survived a crash landing in water. It was thirteen to 30 seconds for these men to realize that they were about to die. Somewhere between thirteen and thirty seconds after the collision, the C-141 of ``Mission Reach 4201'' exploded and what did not vaporize became debris that was spread on the surface of the ocean, or sunk to its cold and murky depths. Needless to say, rescuers and salvage operators never recovered much of the American aircraft or crew. The Air Force ultimately found a few parts of the airplanes and 15 pounds of human remains of such minute quantities that DNA testing had to be conducted to determine who was who. As a point of comparison, a bag of cement is approximately 20 pounds. You could have put the entire remains of nine adult men in a bag that is used to hold cement and have room left over. There were not enough remains left of any one of the crew members to afford their families the comfort of laying their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to rest. Instead, only mementos were placed in caskets and buried. Accident investigations conducted by the United States Air Force and the German Ministry of Defense both concluded that fault for the collision and deaths lay with the German crew, who not only filed an inaccurate flight plan, but were flying at the wrong altitude. The crew of the C-141 were operating appropriately, and were exactly where they were supposed to be when they met their untimely deaths. These nine men died through no fault or negligence of their own, the United States Air Force, or the government of the United States. The families of each of the nine victims have endured not only tremendous mental anguish and suffering, but significant financial losses, and understandably, they are seeking compensation from the German government. Sadly, despite the fact that this crash took place almost two-years-ago, the German government has still to make the first pfenning of compensation to any of the victims' families. I rise today to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution that calls upon the German government to make quick and generous compensation to these families. Just as this Body agreed by unanimous consent on March 23, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make humanitarian relief payments of up to $2 million to each of the families killed in Cavalese, Italy when a Marine Corps jet struck a ski gondola, we should go on the record as expecting equitably fair and expeditious relief for the families of our servicemen killed through the negligence of the German government. It gives me no pleasure to offer this resolution. The German government and people are unquestionably among the closest of allies and the best of friends. We stood side-by-side during the Cold War, facing down the Eastern threat; we are working side-by-side in the Balkans now; our economies are linked; and we value the strong relationship between our two nations. Nevertheless, the Federal Republic of Germany has an undeniable responsibility to make quick and generous compensation to the nine families who lost loved ones aboard ``MISSION REACH 4201'' and I have pledged to Monica Cindrich, the widow of Captain Gregory Cindrich and the mother of their four-year-old son, that I will do all within my power to bring not only compensation to her, but closure to this tragedy. Passing this sense of the Senate resolution will help do just that. Each of us gets into public service because we desire to help people, to do what is right, and to fight for fairness. This Sense of the Senate resolution allows us to achieve each of those goals. By securing compensation for the deaths of the nine men killed, we will unquestionably be helping their families; we will be making a stand for what is right by making a stand for our military families; and finally, we will be fighting for fairness. Just as our government has recognized our responsibility in the case of the Italian ski gondola incident, it is only fair that the German government recognize their responsibility and obligation in this matter. It is my hope that this resolution will pass with the support of an overwhelming majority of Senators. By voting for this provision, each of you will not only be sending an unmistakable message to the German government, but perhaps even more importantly, you will be signaling to our men and women in uniform that their elected officials will always stand by them.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Mr. Thomas B. Griffith, who, on April 18, 1999, resigned from the position of Senate Legal Counsel to return to the private practice of law. Mr. Griffith served in that office for the past four years. Mr. President, as President pro tempore of the Senate, it was my pleasure to oversee the work of the Office of Legal Counsel during Mr. Griffith's tenure. I appreciated the great dedication and professionalism he displayed in his capacity as Legal Counsel. The Office of Senate Legal Counsel plays an important role for the United States Senate. It is responsible for providing legal defense to the Senate, its committees, Members, officers, and employees when authorized to do so. The Legal Counsel represents Senate committees in proceedings to obtain evidence for Senate investigations. As directed, it intervenes or appears as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate and Senate committees. It also represents the interests of the Senate as intervenor or amicus curiae in various other court cases. On an ongoing basis, the Senate Legal Counsel Office provides legal advice to Members, committees, and officers of the Senate. Among the highlights of Mr. Griffith's career in the Senate would undoubtably be the impeachment trial of the President of the United States. During those proceedings, Mr. Griffith provided the Senate with professional and nonpartisan advice on a range of issues related to the impeachment process. Other significant actions in which Mr. Griffith participated or directed as Senate Legal Counsel include the consideration of the Louisiana Contested Election Petition by the Committee on Rules and Administration; the investigation of Campaign Finance Practices by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Judiciary Committee's review of the White House use of FBI files; and the work of the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation. In addition, Mr. Griffith represented the interest of the Senate, its Members, employees and Officers, in a number of cases filed in the courts. At the top of this list would be his work on the Line Item Veto cases. In all of these activities, Mr. Griffith has seen to it that we are all served well by a professional, career, and nonpartisan staff. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this resolution and I am proud to have known and worked with Thomas Griffith. He has served his Nation well. I wish Thomas, his wife Susan, and their children the very best for the future.

Mr. THURMOND

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

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, as our Armed Forces are engaged in operations over Yugoslavia, I am introducing legislation that corrects a long-standing injustice to the widows of our military retirees. My bill would immediately increase for survivors over the age 62 the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of the Survivor Benefit Plan-covered uniform services retired pay. The bill would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of October 1, 2004. Mr. President, I expect every member of the Senate has received mail from military spouses expressing dismay that they would not be receiving the 55 percent of their husband's retirement pay as advertised in the Survivor Benefit Plan literature provided by the military. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced either by the amount of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their spouses, as the constituent mail attests, believed their premium payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation in troubled spots throughout the world undergo when they learn of the annuity reduction. Mr. President, uniformed services retirees pay too much for the available SBP benefit both, compared to what we promised and what we offer other federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the government would pay 40 percent of the cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long- term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with the federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal civilian retiree. Mr. President, two years ago, with the significant support from the Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was successful in gaining approval from the Congress in enacting the Survivor Benefit Plan benefits for the so-called Forgotten Widows. This is the second step toward correcting the Survivors Benefit Plan and providing the surviving spouses of our military personnel earned and paid for benefits. I urge that the Senate act promptly on this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to close a long-standing loophole in our Nation's labor laws. The purpose of the bill is to make clear that violence conducted in the course of a strike is illegal under the Federal extortion law, the Hobbs Act. I am pleased to have Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, join me once again in introducing this important measure. Violence has no place in our society. As I have said many times before, I would, if it were in my power to do so, put an absolute stop, without any compromise, to the disruption of commerce in this country by intimidation and violence, whatever its source. Unfortunately, corrupt union officials have often been the source of such violence. Encouraged by their special Federal exemption from prosecution, corrupt union officials have routinely used intimidation and violence over the years to achieve their goals. Since 1975, the Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented over 9,000 reported incidents of union violence in America. Let me make clear that I agree that the Federal government should not get involved in minor, isolated physical altercations and vandalism that are bound to occur during a labor dispute when emotions are charged and tempers flare. Action such as this is not significant to commerce. However, when union violence moves beyond this and becomes a pattern of violent conduct or of coordinated violent activity, the Federal government should be empowered to act. State and local governments sometimes fail to provide an effective remedy, whether because of a lack of will, a lack of resources, or an inability to focus on the interstate nature of the conduct. It is during these times that Federal involvement is needed to help control and stop the violence. Let me also note that this legislation has never been an effort to involve the Federal government in a matter that traditionally has been reserved for the states. Labor relations are regulated on a national basis, and labor management policies are national policies. There is no reason to keep the Federal Government out of serious labor violence that is intended to achieve labor objectives. Indeed, the Congress intended for the Hobbs Act to apply to the conduct we are addressing in this legislation today. The decision to keep the Federal government out was not made by the Congress. Rather, it was made by the Supreme Court in the United States versus Enmons decision in 1973, when the Supreme Court found that the Hobbs Act did not apply to a lawful strike, as long as the purpose of the strike was to achieve ``legitimate labor objectives,'' such as higher wages. Such an exception does not exist in the words of the statute. The Court could only create this loophole through a strained interpretation of the statute and a selective reading of its legislative history. In his dissent, Justice Douglas aptly criticized the majority for, ``achieving by interpretation what those who were opposed to the Hobbs Act were unable to get Congress to do.'' More specifically, the Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti- Racketeering Act which is intended to prohibit extortion by labor unions. It provides that: ``Whoever in any way . . . obstructs, delays, or affects commerce in the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property . . .'' commits a criminal act. This language clearly outlaws extortion by labor unions. It outlaws violence by labor unions. Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, no violation of the act will be found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are permissible, the means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not result in violation of the act. Let me discuss the Enmons case. In that case, the defendants were indicted for firing high-powered rifles at property, causing extensive damage to the property owned by a utility company--all done in an effort to obtain higher wages and other benefits from the company for striking employees. The indictment was, however, dismissed by the district court on the theory that the Hobbs Act did not prohibit the use of violence in obtaining legitimate union objectives. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant who uses violence or force to achieve his or her goals, the Enmons decision has had several unfortunate results. It has deprived the Federal Government of the ability to punish significant acts of extortionate violence when they occur in a labor management context. Although other Federal statutes prohibit the use of specific devices or the use of channels of commerce in accomplishing the underlying act of extortionate violence, only the Hobbs Act proscribes a localized act of extortionate violence whose economic effect is to disrupt the channels of commerce. Other Federal statutes are not adequate to address the full effect of the Enmons decision. The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and without regard to his or her status as a labor representative, businessman, or private citizen. In short, the Enmons decision is an unfortunate example of judicial activism, of a court interpreting a statute to reach the policy result the court favors rather than the one the legislature intended. This is a problem that has concerned many of us in the Senate for many years. We have held numerous hearings on this matter in the Judiciary Committee since the Enmons decision. Our most recent hearing was in the last Congress after the UPS strike. It is time we closed the loophole on union violence in America. It is my hope that this year we will be successful.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution, I believe it is important that we keep in mind the statement by General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29, 1999. ``It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets the U.S. military apart from all potential adversaries. These talented people are the ones who won the Cold War and ensured our victory in Operation Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals make it possible for the United States to accomplish the many missions we are called on to perform around the world every single day.'' Although we have the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, all their professionalism is for naught if they do not have the equipment, weapons and supplies to carry out their mission. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm, which reflected both the professionalism and material quality of our Armed Forces, the defense budget has declined by $80 billion. Yet the pace of the military operations has not declined, in fact the pace of operations exceeds that of the Cold War era. Not only are the men and women of our military stretched to the limits, but also their equipment. The Air Force Chief of Staff testified that ``Next year, the average age of our aircraft will be 20 years old . . .'' General Reimer, the Chief of Staff of the Army, stated: ``Mortgaging our modernization accounts did not come without cost. By FY98, Army procurement had declined 73 percent, reaching its lowest level since 1959.'' Mr. President, each of the other service chiefs had similar quotations. These quotes paint a dismal picture of our Armed Forces' readiness and are the challenge to the Congress to increase funding for the Department of Defense. The Fiscal Year 2000 Budget resolution proposed by the able Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, increases the budget authority for defense by $8.3 billion over the Administration's request. I congratulate the Budget Committee on this decisive demonstration of support for our Armed Forces. However, this show of support is diminished by the fact that the Budget Committee reduced the outlays for fiscal year 2000 by $8.7 billion. This reduction coupled with the already existing outlay problem, will result in a reduction to the budget authority levels in the $280.5 billion budget request. Mr. President, I want to urge Senator Domenici, to work with Chairman Warner and Chairman Stevens, to resolve this outlay problem before we act on this Resolution. We must not leave the false impression that the increase in the budget authority proposed in this resolution will result in increased security for our Nation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, bad national defense policy is about to get us into serious trouble--again. As I speak, United States Armed Forces are in direct danger because they are being used as social workers in a very dangerous country--Haiti. Most Americans will be greatly surprised that I am saying the United States Army is still in Haiti. Why are most Americans surprised? Because it has been more than 4 years since the September day in 1994 when the President sent a force of 20,000 troops to this island. Despite what the United States did in Haiti, not much has changed, except that the United States force has become tiny and in a great peril. No elected official has been able to bring peace or democracy to Haiti. Factional fighting has immobilized the government and stymied efforts at economic recovery. The factionalism has provoked assassinations and bombings reminiscent of the bad old days. Fortunately, Congress has been put on-call by a voice of honesty coming from our uniformed ranks. Last month, General Wilhelm, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, directly and honestly described the mounting danger surrounding his troops. The 500 United States military personnel left to help prop up Haiti are doing mostly social work and spending much of their time defending themselves from attack. Let me be clear about what kinds of work our troops in Haiti are doing. They are not fighting an enemy. They are involved in tasks like digging wells, providing medical services, and training police and military officers. Such work might be understandable if it contributed to stability. It is not. The 500 United States troops still in Haiti spend much of their energy just trying to protect themselves against those they came to help. Unfortunately, it is now difficult for the administration to accept a clearheaded understanding of these dire circumstances and call for a pullout. Doing so will concede the failure of a peacekeeping mission regularly touted as one of the shining achievements of recent years. The list of the administration's failed peace missions is long and growing. I am unconvinced that trying to resuscitate these failed nation-states is in the U.S. vital interest. The costs of U.S. involvement in peacekeeping are not in our national interests and should be reduced. The price tag of the Bosnia mission, for example, has already hit $12 billion, with no end in sight. Haiti has cost more than $2 billion. However, today the 500 soldiers in Haiti--mostly Army reservists rotating through on short-term assignments--remain in Haiti at a cost of about $20 million last year. The question is simple: Is it in the United States' best interest to have our troops in imminent danger, preoccupied with defending themselves against people whom they have come to help, who have shown little inclination for reform at a cost of $20 million annually to America? This is the path down which the administration has taken the United States. We are now involved in a steady run of civil wars without clear solutions which involve failed nation-states. We will soon drown in this kind of foolishness. Stemming civil wars should not be the main strategic challenge for the United States. These kinds of misadventures do not really engage the strategic interest of the United States. Certainly, such ill-conceived adventures do arrogantly endanger our troops. Because of this, I call on the administration to swiftly withdraw the 500 service men and women who are currently in Haiti. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Yes.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending resolution. NATO was formed to defend Europe against Soviet aggression, not to settle domestic problems. The NATO treaty was ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate. NATO's mission has clearly changed without congressional consultation. Whether for good or bad reasons, NATO combat power is being used to intimidate a sovereign country--Serbia-- into signing a peace agreement on domestic problems. What NATO has done in Bosnia should not be used as reasoning for U.S. action in Kosovo. President Clinton wrongly claims that NATO succeeded in Bosnia because of its air strikes and economic sanctions against Yugoslavia. In fact, it was the successful Croat ground offensive against Bosnian Serbs just before the 1995 Dayton agreement that forced Serbia's compliance with the peace agreement. Likewise, to resolve the problem NATO faces today, ground force will probably be required in Kosovo. Today, the most important issue to the U.S. is our credibility in NATO. For NATO, it was credibility that pushed the majority of NATO members down the dangerous path toward military intervention. At home and abroad the President's problem is credibility. Likewise, it may be America's problem abroad. NATO has issued a clear ultimatum to a vicious aggressor. If Congress does not back U.S. efforts in NATO, will the credibility problem reflect on the United States? It may. However, these issues and questions come to us from the Administration's faulty policies. Such policies have resulted from timid piecemeal reasoning and lack tough-minded decision-making worthy of the problem at hand. Bad national defense policy is about to get us into serious trouble-- again. The list of the administration's failed peace missions is long and growing. I am unconvinced that trying to resuscitate these failed nation-states is in the U.S. vital interest. The costs of U.S. involvement in nation-building are not in our national interests and should be reduced. The price tag of the Bosnia mission, for example, has already hit $12 billion, with no end in sight. The question is simple: Is it in the United States' best interest to have our troops in imminent danger, preoccupied with defending themselves against people whom they have come to help, who have shown little inclination for reform at a great cost to America? This is the path down which the administration has taken the United States. We are now involved in a steady run of civil wars without clear solutions which involve failed nation-states. We will soon drown in this kind of foolishness. Stemming civil wars should not be the main strategic challenge for the United States. These kinds of misadventures do not really engage the strategic interest of the United States. Certainly, such ill-conceived adventures do arrogantly endanger our troops. I cannot support endangering our troops without good reason.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Ernie Coggins, a legislative fellow, during the pendency of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to add my support to S. 257, The National Missile Defense Act of 1999. Any questions on whether or not the United States faces a missile threat were answered by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Hughes, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee. In his opening statement Director Tenet described the threat of a new North Korean missile in the following terms: With a third stage like the one demonstrated last August on the Taepo Dong-1, this missile would be able to deliver large payloads to the rest of the U.S. General Hughes stated: The number of Chinese strategic missiles capable of hitting the United States will increase significantly during the next two decades. This testimony coupled with the findings of the Rumsfeld Commission make an overwhelming case for a National Missile Defense System. We must not be dissuaded by the impact of the National Missile Defense System on the ABM Treaty. The evidence of the missile threat to the United States is too overwhelming. The bill before us is only a first step toward the deployment of a National Missile Defense System. It provides deployment flexibility to the Department of Defense. It states that it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system. It does not mandate a specific time nor a specific type of a system. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Cochran for introducing this legislation and for his passionate and articulate expression of support for a National Missile Defense System. Our citizens owe him a debt of gratitude for his persistence in pursuit of a missile defense program to protect them and the Nation. Mr. President, there has been enough discussion on this issue, it is time for the Nation and this Congress to act. I urge the Senate to express its support for the security of our Nation by overwhelmingly approving S. 257, The National Missile Defense Act of 1999.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator for the excellent manner in which he just presented Washington's Farewell Address.

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thrumond pertaining to the introduction of S. 431, S. 432, and S. 433 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, S. 4, The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, may be the most significant national security legislation approved by the Senate this year. It will provide the basis for major improvements in the welfare of our military personnel and their families, recruiting and retention and, in turn, the readiness of our Armed Forces. Although I was a cosponsor of the bill introduced by the leadership, the bipartisan bill reported out by the Armed Services Committee is a stronger piece of legislation because it includes a provision revising the benefits under the Montgomery GI bill. This provision proposed by Senator Cleland will be a major recruiting incentive and provide significant educational benefits to our military personnel and indirectly to families. Madam President, despite initial criticism by some officials in the Department of Defense, the provision in the bill providing an option to the career service member to choose a $30,000 bonus and stay in REDUX or a 50 percent retirement is gaining support among the military community. The initial criticism that by choosing the bonus over full retirement would short change the individual was based on incomplete data. The fact is that a Sergeant First Class in the Army who retires at 20 years under REDUX, who invested the bonus five years earlier in a tax deferred stock fund, would gain $46,000 more in lifetime benefits than an identical retiree under the full retirement plan. Madam President, I understand there are concerns, which I share, regarding the potential cost of the bill. Although we have to consider cost, we must also remember that we have the best all-volunteer military in the World. If we are to maintain that caliber force, we must be prepared to pay for it. I support the bill before us and urge the Senate to demonstrate bipartisan support for the bill and for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Madam President, as a final comment, I want to congratulate our new Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for designating S. 4 as the first bill considered by the Committee and the Senate. This gesture sends a strong message to our military personnel that they and our national security are foremost in the Senate's interest. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address an important national health concern. On February 5, 1999, the Department of Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approved two new health statements for wine labels. This decision, in my opinion, was irresponsible and constitutes poor public policy. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in our country. For years, drunk driving, underage drinking, drinking during pregnancy, and alcoholism have had devastating effects on the health and safety of our citizens. During the 1980s, I was proud to be part of a national public health campaign that resulted in congressionally mandated alcohol container warning labels. Since the implementation of these warning labels, the wine industry has been determined to undermine their effectiveness. Through a vigorous lobbying and marketing campaign, the wine industry has enticed the public with the assurance that alcohol consumption is healthy. A recent New York Times editorial by Michael Massing provides an insightful summary of the wine industries' irresponsible efforts to manipulate public policy toward this end. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that editorial be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, the wine industry may already have had ironic success in its campaign. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, four times as many pregnant women frequently consumed alcohol in 1995 than did in 1991. The study attributes reports about the so-called health benefits of moderate wine consumption as a cause for this terrible increase. The decision by Treasury and A.T.F. to approve new health claims labels will escalate the problems of alcohol abuse. Last week, several big liquor firms signaled an intent to attach health-benefits labels to bottles of liquor. The alcohol industry's veiled attempt to use health claims as a marketing scheme has gone on long enough. And the passive complicity of Treasury and A.T.F. is unacceptable. Today I am introducing three bills that will address this public health dilemma. The first bill, the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1999, will transfer authority over alcoholic beverage labeling from the Department of Treasury to the Department of Health and Human Services. Treasury and A.T.F. proved themselves incapable of managing the responsibility of alcohol labeling when they decided to favor the aggressive lobbying tactics of the wine industry over the public health concerns of such groups as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association. The issues of public health and labeling require a level of experience and expertise that Treasury and A.T.F. apparently do not possess. My legislation will give the labeling authority to the Department of Health and Human Services and its subsidiary the Food and Drug Administration which have more experience in these matters. The second bill I am introducing, The Alcohol Abuse, Prevention and Treatment Trust Fund Act of 1999, will create a trust fund dedicated to programs for the prevention and treatment of alcohol related problems and will be paid for by a new tax on wine. Wine is currently taxed at a rate slightly lower than beer and significantly lower than distilled spirits. Distilled spirits are taxed more heavily than beer because, according to the Congressional Research Service, more affluent taxpayers drink distilled spirits while working class taxpayers drink beer. Like distilled spirits, wine is consumed by more prosperous taxpayers, so it is reasonable that wine should be taxed at a rate similar to distilled spirits. The revenue generated by this tax will be used specifically for the prevention and treatment of alcohol related problems such as heart disease and birth defects. Funds will also be used to address problems caused by moderate alcohol consumption, such as breast cancer and hypertension. For many years the tobacco industry deceived the public about the consequences of smoking. It appears as if the wine industry is following the lead of the tobacco industry. Rather than wait for the long term repercussions of an alcohol health benefits campaign, we should take action now to thwart its inevitable effects. The third and final bill I am introducing today, the Alcoholic Beverage Label Preservation Act of 1999, will block the use of the two new health claims labels approved by Treasury and A.T.F. I urge my colleagues to review these important pieces of legislation and support passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of all three bills be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of an article by the Marin Institute, which provides helpful background information on this subject, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address an important national health concern. On February 5, 1999, the Department of Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approved two new health statements for wine labels. This decision, in my opinion, was irresponsible and constitutes poor public policy. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in our country. For years, drunk driving, underage drinking, drinking during pregnancy, and alcoholism have had devastating effects on the health and safety of our citizens. During the 1980s, I was proud to be part of a national public health campaign that resulted in congressionally mandated alcohol container warning labels. Since the implementation of these warning labels, the wine industry has been determined to undermine their effectiveness. Through a vigorous lobbying and marketing campaign, the wine industry has enticed the public with the assurance that alcohol consumption is healthy. A recent New York Times editorial by Michael Massing provides an insightful summary of the wine industries' irresponsible efforts to manipulate public policy toward this end. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that editorial be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, the wine industry may already have had ironic success in its campaign. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, four times as many pregnant women frequently consumed alcohol in 1995 than did in 1991. The study attributes reports about the so-called health benefits of moderate wine consumption as a cause for this terrible increase. The decision by Treasury and A.T.F. to approve new health claims labels will escalate the problems of alcohol abuse. Last week, several big liquor firms signaled an intent to attach health-benefits labels to bottles of liquor. The alcohol industry's veiled attempt to use health claims as a marketing scheme has gone on long enough. And the passive complicity of Treasury and A.T.F. is unacceptable. Today I am introducing three bills that will address this public health dilemma. The first bill, the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1999, will transfer authority over alcoholic beverage labeling from the Department of Treasury to the Department of Health and Human Services. Treasury and A.T.F. proved themselves incapable of managing the responsibility of alcohol labeling when they decided to favor the aggressive lobbying tactics of the wine industry over the public health concerns of such groups as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association. The issues of public health and labeling require a level of experience and expertise that Treasury and A.T.F. apparently do not possess. My legislation will give the labeling authority to the Department of Health and Human Services and its subsidiary the Food and Drug Administration which have more experience in these matters. The second bill I am introducing, The Alcohol Abuse, Prevention and Treatment Trust Fund Act of 1999, will create a trust fund dedicated to programs for the prevention and treatment of alcohol related problems and will be paid for by a new tax on wine. Wine is currently taxed at a rate slightly lower than beer and significantly lower than distilled spirits. Distilled spirits are taxed more heavily than beer because, according to the Congressional Research Service, more affluent taxpayers drink distilled spirits while working class taxpayers drink beer. Like distilled spirits, wine is consumed by more prosperous taxpayers, so it is reasonable that wine should be taxed at a rate similar to distilled spirits. The revenue generated by this tax will be used specifically for the prevention and treatment of alcohol related problems such as heart disease and birth defects. Funds will also be used to address problems caused by moderate alcohol consumption, such as breast cancer and hypertension. For many years the tobacco industry deceived the public about the consequences of smoking. It appears as if the wine industry is following the lead of the tobacco industry. Rather than wait for the long term repercussions of an alcohol health benefits campaign, we should take action now to thwart its inevitable effects. The third and final bill I am introducing today, the Alcoholic Beverage Label Preservation Act of 1999, will block the use of the two new health claims labels approved by Treasury and A.T.F. I urge my colleagues to review these important pieces of legislation and support passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of all three bills be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of an article by the Marin Institute, which provides helpful background information on this subject, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. Chief Justice, the vote I cast on the articles of impeachment was one of the hardest votes that I have had to make in all my years in the United States Senate, not that I do not think I made the correct decision. While I am saddened that we had to make the judgment we made in this impeachment trial, each of us had a duty to undertake this task, and I do not shirk from duties. The House Managers performed their duty admirably, making a comprehensive, coherent, and eloquent presentation. The White House attorneys presented a spirited defense. Similarly, due in part to the outstanding leadership of the Senate Majority Leader, I am confident that history will record that we in the Senate exercised our duty to conduct the trial appropriately and fairly. I believe the Founding Fathers would be pleased with the process and procedure. The purpose of impeachment is not to punish a man. It is not a way to express displeasure or disagreement with a President or his policies. Impeachment is a mechanism designed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, the Country, and Office of the Presidency. My primary concern, from the first day of this scandal, was the impact it would have on the Office of the Presidency. This case is not about illicit conduct or even about not telling the truth about illicit conduct. Instead, the case is about two activities. The first is whether the President intentionally made false statements under oath to a Federal grand jury, to the Judiciary of the United States. The second is whether the President obstructed justice before a United States District Court and a Federal grand jury, again to the Judiciary of the United States. A Senator's role in an impeachment trial is a mix of roles from our judicial system, including being part judge and part jury. At least in reviewing the evidence, we do act as jurors, and we should view evidence the way the courts expect jurors to view it. We use our common sense and our knowledge of human behavior based on our everyday experiences in life. In this case, the defense has attempted to take each act, separate it out, and artificially place it in isolation. I cannot view the evidence in this fashion. I cannot ignore common sense. As to perjury, I have no doubt that the evidence presented to the Senate proves that the President did not tell the truth to the Federal grand jury. He made numerous false statements to make his illicit conduct seem more benign; to make his efforts at witness tampering with his secretary seem innocuous; and to make his testimony in the Paula Jones case appear truthful. As to obstruction of justice, in my mind there can be no dispute but that the President intentionally interfered with the Judiciary. When the President spoke to Monica Lewinsky about her being a witness in the Paula Jones case, he did not discuss the contents of her affidavit because he did not have to. Based on their previous conversations and the pattern of their relationship, she knew exactly what he meant; he meant for her to file a false and misleading affidavit with the Federal court. When the President spoke to his secretary and suggested to her an explanation for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky that he knew was not true, he was engaged in classic witness tampering. There can be no other acceptable explanation. When the President failed to reveal to the Federal judge during his Paula Jones deposition that the Monica Lewinsky affidavit was false, he was obstructing the fact-finding process of the District Court. I can accept no other explanation. The President has violated his sacred oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Regardless of the bounds of private conduct and of the importance of allowing people to keep their private lives private, those bounds are broken when someone violates an oath to tell the truth in a court of law. Those bounds are also broken when someone interferes with a court of law in its efforts to find the facts and find the truth. The President's conduct in this matter was an egregious affront to the judicial system. We have a Chief Executive who has intentionally decided not to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Indeed, he intentionally interfered with the lawful duties of a co-equal branch of government. This should not be tolerated. No one is above the law. I cannot accept the argument that a different legal standard applies to judges than to the President. The Congress has never accepted that argument before. There is no support for it in the words of the Constitution, which establishes one standard of impeachment for ``the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States.'' There is no support for it in the debates at the Constitutional Convention or in the Federalist Papers. Is it reasonable to conclude that our standards for removal from office for criminal conduct is less for the Chief Law Enforcement Officer than it is for civil officers who are appointed to apply the law? Because the President is the Commander in Chief, I must think about our men and women in uniform. I do not suggest that the President should be strictly subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice during his term in office. However, if we vote not guilty on the articles on these facts, what message do we send to our soldiers about duty, honor, and country? Given that the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, if we vote not guilty, what message do we send American citizens about respect for the rule of law? For that matter, what massage do we send our children and grandchildren for generations to come about the consequences of not telling the truth? We have been told that we should not remove the President from office because doing so would ``overturn the results of an election.'' The Senate does not have this power. Our power extends no further than removal of the President, and the law provides that his running mate, the Vice President, takes the oath of office. If the President is removed, the Administration does not change from one party to another. The Constitution wisely provides for continuity. The impeachment process only provides for the removal of the current occupant. Indeed, we are not engaged in a Constitutional crisis. The Constitution provides the roadmap for what we are doing. We are simply following our Constitutional duty. We did not ask for this burden. It was thrust upon us by the misconduct of the current occupant of the Office of the Presidency. Before today, perjury and obstruction of justice were clearly high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution, My vote is consistent with this. The President is not above the law. The Constitutional standard is no different for him than for anyone else. It is for these reasons that I voted guilty on both articles of impeachment. Mr. CRAPO Mr. Chief Justice, very soon we will all cast what is clearly among the most serious votes any members of Congress could ever be asked to make. I will vote to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both of the two articles of impeachment before the U.S. Senate--prejury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. To me, the evidence presented over the previous four weeks is not reasonably subject to any conclusion other than that the President did commit the crimes alleged against him. From the very beginning of this matter, I have been circumspect about commenting on President Clinton's conduct. As a newly elected Senator, I was inundated with interview requests from national media. I chose not to appear on these programs and restricted my comments to a discussion of the process. I felt it was incumbent upon me as a member of the impeachment court to avoid commenting on the evidence until the trial has concluded. At the outset, each Senator was administered a separate oath by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This special oath was separate and distinct from the oath of office that each Senator takes when sworn into office. To my knowledge, this is the only other occasion in which our Founding Fathers required a separate and distinct oath of U.S. Senators to perform a constitutional responsibility. Once again, the incredible wisdom of our Founding Fathers was evident. As each Senator took the oath to provide impartial justice, a realization fell over us that we had just embarked on a very solemn duty. No longer was the Senate a legislative body, it was a court of impeachment. A unique court, to be sure, not identical to traditional civil and criminal courts, but a court nonetheless. This oath to render ``impartial justice'' was a promise to God under our Constitution. It also represented a duty to all Idahoans to represent them impartially. I committed that I would conduct myself in a fashion so that at any time I could affirm that I fully honored this commitment. I was present at all the Senate proceedings, and fully reviewed the evidence presented before the Senate. I was ready to vote either to acquit or to convict, depending on the evidence, argument, and law presented to the Senate. In approaching this decision, several questions must be answered. Did the President commit the crimes alleged? And if so, are these crimes ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' requiring the removal of the President from office under the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution? After carefully weighing the evidence and the law presented to the Senate, I have concluded after many sleepless nights and troubling days that the evidence shows that President Clinton committed the crimes alleged in the Articles of Impeachment. These crimes involve perjury and obstruction of justice in federal criminal grand jury proceedings and in a federal civil rights action. Although the ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' standard of traditional criminal trials is not applicable in impeachment proceedings, I am convinced the evidence presented in this case meet even this high standard. Notwithstanding the impression created by some of the media and talk shows, there seems to be general consensus that the President committed the acts alleged against him. The core debate is whether these acts rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors as required to impeach and remove the President from office under the Constitution. Some argue that this entire matter is just an effort to impeach the President for ``private'' conduct and that impeachment is proper only for ``public'' conduct that violates the public trust. But it is important to clarify that these proceedings are not about sex or even lying about sex. Both the President's counsel and the House managers correctly made the point that private conduct by the President is a matter properly left between the President and his wife and family. The allegations in this case, however, relate to public acts that go to the heart of the rule of law in America--perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights case and before criminal grand jury proceedings. I am deeply concerned that we will do great damage to our system of law and the freedom it defends if we diminish the seriousness of these crimes and thereby suggest to future offenders that they can commit these crimes with little to fear. It is telling that on three separate occasions the U.S. Senate has removed federal judges from office for perjury. Judges are tried under the same Constitutional provision requiring proof of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors as are presidents. Judge Claiborne was removed from office for lying on his income tax returns. Judge Hastings was removed for lying under oath in a trial. Judge Nixon was removed for making false statements to a grand jury. Clearly, under prior Senate precedent, perjury is a ``high crime and misdemeanor.'' In America, our freedom is assured by the rule of law. Our law seeks to provide equal and impartial justice to all. All Americans--the poor, the rich, the weak, the powerful--are entitled to the same protection under the law. And even, the most powerful among us must be subject to those laws. Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the President of the United States, who is the highest official in the land and who has the additional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. The primacy of the rule of law over the rule of individuals is one of the most important safeguards of freedom in our Constitution. Our entire legal system is dependent on our ability to find the truth. That is why perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes. Federal sentencing guidelines place perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice in the same realm of seriousness as bribery. Commission of these crimes is a direct effort to prevent our legal system from performing one of its core functions--finding the truth. The offenses are even worse when committed against the poor or powerless by the wealthy or powerful. Our Constitution guarantees, fortunately, that the most ordinary person has the right to her day in court even if she is not well liked by the public or has become characterized in a bad light by her opponents. And even if the person from whom she seeks justice is the President. In 1792, Chief Justice John Jay gave one of the best historical explanations of the reason crimes against the truth-seeking process in our system of justice are so dangerous to our freedom: Independent of the abominable Insult which Perjury offers to the divine Being, there is no Crime more Pernicious to Society. It discolors and poisons the Streams of Justice, and by substituting Falsehood for Truth, saps the Foundations of personal and public Right. . . . Testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable Rights would become insecure.-- Chief Justice John Jay, Charge to a Grand Jury of the Circuit Court of the District of Vermont, June 25, 1792. Perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes that strike at the heart of the rule of law--and therefore our freedom--in America. I conclude that these acts do constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, I will vote to convict President Clinton on both of the impeachment articles. Fortunately, this trial is over and I now can direct my full attention to fulfilling the other oath I took when I was sworn in as a United States Senator. Many challenges and opportunities face Idahoans and all Americans. I will, as I always have, give all my energy to working on a bipartisan basis to solve problems, strengthen America and protect our future.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend Mr. Frank Burk, the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, who retired on December 31, 1998, after serving in the Senate for more than 28 years, including 8 years as Legislative Counsel. Mr. President, as President pro tempore of the Senate, it was my pleasure to oversee the work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel during the last four years of Frank Burk's tenure. I appreciated the great dedication and professionalism he displayed in his role as Legislative Counsel. The Legislative Counsel and his staff play a very important role in the legislative process. We all rely upon the Legislative Counsel and the attorneys in his Office to provide legislative drafts to effectively carry out our legislative policy. Mr. Burk has seen to it that we are all served well by a professional, career, and nonpartisan staff. In addition to his service as Legislative Counsel, Frank Burk served for more than 25 years as the principal drafter in the Senate on virtually all matters relating to banking, housing, securities, mass transit, and small business. As Legislative Counsel, he prepared legislation on matters relating to the operations and rules of the Senate. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this resolution and I am proud to have known and worked with Frank Burk. He has served his Nation well for over 30 years, including two years with the United States Army. I wish Frank and his wife Virginia the very best for the future, especially time spent with their four daughters, Elizabeth, Alison, Abigail, and Emily, their two sons-in-law, Lange Johnson and Hunt Shipman, and their granddaughter, Anna Shipman.