Madam President, I distributed to the members earlier a "Sense of the Senate" resolution that would express the sense of this body regarding the upcoming action by the U.S. Senate. I did not move that resolution under unfinished business, and wanted to explain why and make a few comments on it.

I do appreciate the strong support by many members of this body for the heart of what that resolution was getting to, which is: that if the U.S. Senate concludes, after considering all the evidence, that President Clinton committed the crimes described in the Articles of Impeachment, he should be removed from office.

But the question of whether this should be a "Sense of the Senate" resolution, or a "Senate Resolution," or a "Joint Resolution" really is one that gets bogged down in technical detail that I believe may mask the more important issue regarding what the U.S. Senate should do. So rather than do that, I've concluded that we should send a letter that expresses essentially the same thing as the resolution, and I urge all members to join me in signing that. I know many of you have already expressed that you would want to do that. I'd like it if you could sign it by 3 o'clock today, and then we will fax that letter to our senators in Washington.

Some may ask why we in the Alaska Senate should even bring up this issue, because this is a topic that is being discussed and will be taken care of in another venue.

I believe it is important for us to speak out on an issue that has importance to all Americans, indeed probably to all people in the world. Because the actions of our president and the actions of our Senate really do have an impact on all of us, and are just as important to us as the many other important issues we debate here, such as those we'll take up tomorrow in the economic forum.

One of the things I think is important to realize is that the resolution that I was proposing, and the letter will say this, is that we don't want to prejudge what conclusion the Senate may come to. I'm not about to tell the jurors how to vote. But, if they conclude that the president did commit the crimes that he is accused of, then they should remove him from office.

That is one issue that a number of people are trying to skirt. They're coming to the conclusion that yes, indeed the evidence shows that he did this, but the stock market is high, our country is doing well, it would interrupt what's happening, we don't want Al Gore as president, or whatever the reason they come up with, but they say, "let's not take the next action, and we'll just conclude the first, but not the second." And indeed, there are many scurrying right now to come up with some way to come up with a censure resolution that will express strong displeasure with his actions without going the next step.

It's not lost on me that the arguments made even today are not on the facts of the case. Even the president's own handlers and lawyers aren't arguing the facts of the case. Whereas they chastised Judge Starr before for even conducting the inquiry, they are willing to accept today the facts of the case as expressed in the report by the Independent Counsel.

Madam President, as you know, I represent Elmendorf Air Force Base. Let me ask this: If an officer at Elmendorf had an adulterous affair with an enlisted man or woman, and then lied about it under oath, what would happen to that officer? Well, I think we all know what would happen. In fact, we've seen evidence that that officer doesn't even have to lie under oath to lose out on opportunities for advancement. That person's career would be over!

So the issue in this case is simple: do we hold the Commander-in-Chief to a lower standard of behavior than we hold the millions of Americans who serve in uniform?

In the 1980s, the United States Senate convicted three impeached federal judges for, among other things, making perjurious statements. One of the judges, Harry Claiborne, lied regarding his personal income tax returns, an offense that has nothing to do with his official duties as a judge. But the Senate decided that such an action was a breach of integrity that warranted removal from office. During his impeachment trial, one senator in particular made a powerful argument. If you don't mind, I'll just quote his words. He said:

"The conclusion is inescapable that Claiborne filed false income tax returns and that he did so willfully rather than negligently. Given the circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and strip this man of his title. An individual who has knowingly falsified tax returns has no business receiving a salary derived from the tax dollars of honest citizens. More importantly, an individual guilty of such reprehensible conduct ought not be permitted to exercise the awesome powers which the Constitution entrusts to the Federal Judiciary."

Who spoke those words? None other than Senator Albert Gore, Jr. He was correct when he made those statements. Persons with such "awesome powers" should not continue in office if found guilty of such reprehensible conduct.

The last time our country had a nationwide debate on the standards for impeachment and removal from office was in 1974. I remember this well. For a short period, I was in the Washington, D.C. area. The Capitol, indeed the country, was abuzz with what appeared to be an impending impeachment trial of then President Richard Nixon for the Watergate scandal. During that time, a somewhat prominent attorney and Congressional candidate was asked what the standard should be for impeachment. This was his response:

"No question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense. If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign."

The attorney who made those remarks was William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas.

And I'll note that yesterday, none other then the Senator who some consider the "Dean of the Senate," the constitutional authority, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia said that indeed, perjury and obstruction of justice rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors required by the Constitution of the United States.

He went on to say, "It will be very difficult to stand and say 'not guilty,' very difficult," Byrd said on ABC's "This Week." "Who's kidding whom here? I have to live with myself. I have to live with my conscience. And I have to live with the Constitution. I have no doubt that he has given false testimony under oath and that he has misled the American people," Byrd said. "There are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice."

Madam President, I'm not suggesting holding the president to an unreasonably high standard. Rather, he should be held to the same standards that he set for others in 1974. He should be held to the same standards required of the millions of American servicemen and servicewomen. I urge members to join me today in signing this letter to our Senators that expresses, indeed, the sense of each one of us.

Thank you, Madam President.