Senator Mike Enzi (ME) -- This has been an exciting day. This is Read Across America Day. I helped pass a resolution that emphasizes this day and how parents ought to be reading with their kids today. Since my youngest one is a freshman in College I talked to a kindergarten classroom in Evanston this morning and read the "House Mouse Senate Mouse" book, which they already had a copy of. I was able to read it on this end and the teacher was turning the pages on the other end. I was able to make some comments about some of the architecture and some of the process that isn't included in the book. It was really exciting to do that and emphasize how important reading is to the kids. At one point I made a comment about how I am sure they are starting to think about what they want to be when they grow up. At that point the kindergarten kids said, "Yeah, I want to be a fireman, I want to be a nurse.."
Janine Jobe (JJ)- None of them wanted to be a Senator?
ME- No none of them mentioned that.
JJ- What was the name of the book?
ME -- "House Mouse Senate Mouse".
JJ- How long have they had Reading Across America?
ME- I don't know. I'm not sure. This is the first time that I remember it being emphasized and was excited about the fact that they were doing it. I've been reading this "House Mouse" book to kids across Wyoming whenever I talk to a kindergarten group. I'm in Wyoming almost every weekend and when I'm there early enough on Fridays I stop by a couple of school classrooms. Usually somewhere between kindergarten and 6th Grade. When I'm in a kindergarten class I usually read that book. Then with all of the classes I answer questions about what I'm doing and why Washington is important. I think it is important for us to get the kids involved in the political process at a young age. You can't make kids good citizens just because they turn 18. I've really enjoyed those visits. I get great questions from the kids. In fact, when you are talking to kids 6th grade and under they really aren't under that peer pressure that a lot of kids come under. They don't worry about whether it's a good question or not. Consequently you get really good questions. It was a chance today to emphasize reading a little bit. Also we were really following the mandate of Reading Across America. With that I'll open it up to any questions.
Susan Anderson (SA) -- Let me ask you because I haven't talked to you about Iraq and what you think about the deal that was made with Saddam Hussein.
ME- In light of where we were in the process I think we're at a good point with the deal. It gives us a chance to quickly and readily while everybody's in place, test the agreement that was made to see if it's an honest agreement or not. If it's not there's other action that can be taken. It's also an opportunity for us to put in place the policies that we've been urging the President to have for at least the two years that I've been involved and to shop that policy around to our allies so that everybody will understand what the requirements are. How will we know if they're met. What will the costs be? How they will be divided. Who will participate? These are the questions that have been involved in this that have not yet been answered. We got a start on answering those as a result of the crisis that we just went through. I'm glad that there have been some diplomatic approaches. I hope they are honest and true diplomatic approaches. If they are, there will be a lot of progress over in the Middle East.
SA- How do we know that we have measurably checked what they are doing there? What kind of assurances do you want to see in some sort of deal that we are actually being able to watch, what kind of a build-up they've got going on?
ME- Well, the agreement says inspection teams will be able to go in and do the inspections and the inspections will be pressed to the most difficult level as soon as possible. I don't know what as soon as possible means either. But it will get the inspectors in there to see if there is any evidence of weapons of mass destruction and move us on down the road to giving some assurance that there isn't. One of the difficulties we had during the whole process was understanding what the end game was going to be if we went in and bombed. Right now Saddam I'm sure is claiming victory because he fended off the States one more time. That's exactly the same result we would have had if we would have gone in and bombed and then stopped, except of course he would have had examples of horrors that happened in his country to civilians and women and kids. That would have left us in a bad light in the Middle East particularly, but in the whole world in general. One of the things that everyone is emphasizing here is that the end game has to be to change administrations in Iraq.
SA- And how do you do that?
ME- I wish I had the solution to that one. I can tell you what some of the solutions are that are being passed out and part of that is to let the people of that area know that there is dissatisfaction with that government through radio Free Iraq and also to convey the information that if Saddam is knocked out of government that the new government would be recognized almost immediately. There is another plan that calls for him possibly to be brought before world court for war crimes. Probably that would have to be done without his presence, but it's another mechanism that's out there in the law to put some word out that Saddam has not been doing the kind of a job that he's been putting out on his radio stations. The recommendations we get go all the way from having the no-fly zone to increasing it to a no-drive policy so that military cannot move around the area. Then there is even the suggestion there be a no-broadcast policy, which means that any time he is putting out propaganda over his own radio and TV stations that those stations would be eliminated. I don't think the country that's the chief proponent of free speech can do that so probably our counter is to do the Free Iraq Radio.
SA- Sounds like that would be a long way to go to actually accomplish a change doesn't it? to kind of pin your hopes on Free Iraq Radio and hope to change the minds and the hearts of the people.
ME- It does, but it seems to be the best alternative that I've heard short of any kind of warfare. We don't have the policies in place, the support of the allies, and even a military commitment the size the United States would need to have to go in and make a change in government there. I think that some of the word that will be conveyed to Saddam is that if you use any of these weapons of mass destruction, and their range is relatively limited unless they are hand carried, then we will help those countries. The key word there is help rather than take the lead or do it by ourselves -- help those countries eradicate Iraq. Not eradicate the people, eradicate the government.
SA- Do you ever see a current danger that some city in the United States could actually get targeted by ...I guess you are saying his range is not far enough to actually reach us -- are we in danger from any country?
ME- I can't say we're not even in danger from him because of ways that the weapons can be transported through terrorists who don't mind dying. But actual weapons that could deliver it we are told that the range is less than 500 miles, which still reaches a substantial population of the world but doesn't affect the United States, unless they are transported some other way.
JJ- A little bit closer to home and not dealing with the death and destruction of the free world as we know it, Albertson's buy-out of Buttrey's. What is the role that the FTC should be playing? Is it playing its proper role and how strong of a role should that be?
ME- It's my understand that people can address comments and should if they have concerns to the Federal Trade Commission in Washington. We can get the addresses and the fax numbers and that sort of thing for them to do that so the Federal Trade Commission definitely understands if there is going to be any restraint of trade involved there, they can be aware of and monitor any potential changes that might happen. I suspect that a lot of it would be perception as much as actual. I know that everybody up there is concerned about only having one grocery store. This affects Gillette as well because Albertson's has bought out Buttrey's there and there is a lot of concern by the people about how much condensation of market there is going to be, less locations for being able to get things, ability for particularly the senior citizens to get somewhere to get groceries. Of course all the Federal Trade Commission does is check to see if there is constraint of trade, which is a very hard thing to measure.
JJ- If there is constraintive trade, are they in a position to force Albertson's to divest itself of any grocery stores that they've picked up where they are the only alternative?
ME- It's my understanding that most of their authority comes during this process during the time of buy-out rather than after the buy-out. What they would be able to prevent is the merger to begin with and it's my understanding that they can even be selective on which stores are part of the merger and which aren't provided that wouldn't kill the deal completely.
JJ- Air service, thank you so much for bringing planes back to Cody and having a hand in that. There is still going to be some limitations in ...we're going to have less air service than we had last summer. Is the solution they've come up with, is it sufficient in Cody? Is it sufficient to serve rural Wyoming in general?
ME- Actually I hope we never feel that our air transportation is sufficient in Wyoming. That's a key link with us and the rest of the world and the economy and the business community and jobs are all tied to that. We always have to be watching it. I've followed the whole process from both the Mesa side of the controversy and the United side of the controversy and I've had meetings in a variety of places in the state and then went with the Governor back to Chicago to talk to United Airlines. That was at the time that the contract with Mesa was being canceled because they pulled out of Cody and because they had some service standards they were not meeting that United expects out of people. From my travels across the state the people of Wyoming pretty much expect those standards too. They expect a pilot to be with the plane when the plane is supposed to go so that they can make their connections in Denver. They do expect people to handle their bags properly and all of that sort of thing. There were some difficulties in a number of areas that United had asked them to increase. Mesa had also said that they wanted a greater portion of the shared fare. It was my indication that United was willing to talk about shared fares but not until Mesa had a plan in place that would assure people that they would have the new services. Then Mesa pulled out of Cody which was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back and resulted in the contract being canceled. I'm pleased that United was interested in being sure that there is service not just to the essential air service communities, but to all of the communities that presently have air service, and(concerned about) expanding that as the need increases. One of the things they pointed out was that possibly some lower fares might have increased the number of people that were riding on the planes and there was only 50 percent occupancy on the planes anyway. There is an opportunity for us to push for bigger planes, more planes and lower fares. I think that's all things that people in Wyoming are interested in. But we have to be sure that we reach that overall goal of being able to get our people where they need to go.
JJ- How's your crime bill doing? Did you withdraw your sponsorship?
ME- No I haven't withdrawn my sponsorship yet. I've been raising objections to the bill practically since the detailed wording on it came out. I've gotten a lot of changes made in that bill as we've gone along to make it more beneficial particularly for rural places like Wyoming. I've had good success with all of Congress being able to promote rural aspects because I found out early on if you start talking about how rural your state is the other senator joins in by explaining how rural his state is too.
JJ- On upping each other on ruralness?
ME- Well, no, I never one up them although I'm sure I could win. But the win in this case is to have them recognize that they have rural problems just like we do. I don't care if they are California, or New York or where they are. As soon as they join me on this "we have a rural population too," I like to get them on board with helping on the rural solution. I've had some success on doing that. One of the things we've been concerned about in Wyoming is the requirement on separation of youth in jails and we believe in that. They've carried the rule to such an extreme that it is virtually impossible to take care of the youth when they are picked up if they do need to be incarcerated. You can't even have the same person cook the meals even if the person who cooks the meals never sees the adults and never sees the juveniles and the juveniles and the adults are never in the same room. That seems to me to be quite a stretch of the rule. A lot of the meals are even contracted out and brought in but if they are cooked by the same person, they are illegal. I don't know how they see that as being communication that would teach kids bad things about crime. Having them on separate floors in the same building isn't proper. I guess the communication there is they could tap on the pipes and communicate with each other. They've made it pretty ridiculous and difficult for rural communities to meet. I've been trying to work from within the bill to get some of these requirements out of the bill or to get them more reasonable. Of course I'm extremely upset about some of the gun control provisions that are in there. Ones that can make a parent who takes their kid out target shooting be criminal if the parent isn't accompanied, even though he is there, being accompanied by a permission slip from himself so there isn't gang activity. There really are some ridiculous requirements in there and I raised the objections early. I was assured that if I stayed on the bill that there would be some work done on that. They have done some work. They haven't done enough work. If they don't do enough work I'll get off the bill but I'm more comfortable working from inside the system then telling them where to go with their bill and then trying to get them to change it. Although I'm ready to do that if that is necessary too. It's just a matter of them being comfortable working with me with my position on the bill.
SA- Sen. Enzi on Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, are you feeling that that prosecution is going the way it should or are you concerned that the unlimited subpoena powers are being used too much?
ME- I think that the investigation is going the way it needs to go, and under a normal process wouldn't get nearly as much publicity either way as it is. I'm very concerned about the President's people complaining, then disclosing, then chastising. That's not how the process is supposed to work. The President ought to produce the answers that he promised to produce before he did the state of the union message and distracted the country. He said that he'd have those answers to us on why all these things happened just as soon as he finished his main business which was the state of the union speech. I guess that he could argue that Iraq was another part of the main business, and I'd have to agree with that, but it looks like that's fairly well resolved at the moment. I really expect the President to come forth and explain a bunch of these inconsistences himself. Short of him doing that, the prosecutor has very strict rules that he has to follow, and I'm sure that he's disconcerted with all of the people on his staff being investigated and rumors being put out and not even being able to follow up on the rumors that are supposedly leaks from his own organization because of the democrats chastising him for it. I think he's doing a very good job under difficult circumstances and that's how our justice system is supposed to work, but without all of the publicity that's happening. I'm willing to see how it comes out.
SA- You know the polls show people and I think there's a sense of people out there that they actually don't want to hear as much about it but also would prefer to see the White House focusing on issues that matter to I think maybe more people than they think. It looks like maybe petty and personal discussions with people about their lives. I'm expressing what I think is a perception out there looking at the poll results. Are people misinformed by feeling that way or are we seeing a distraction from the real problems of the country.
ME- I've got to say that I've been a little disconcerted by some of the polls that show what the approval ratings are at the moment and have tried to reflect on what those might show. It's my hope that it does not show that only 30% of the American people are worried about morals in the country. With the kids or with the leadership. I do think that people in public office have to hold themselves to a higher level of morals. I hope that what's being suggested out there is not true in all instances I hope that it's not true because it would be a terrible thing for the President and his family, but it's a process that we have to go through because I could see points during the Iraq situation where the President's ability to operate was severely constrained by what people perceived him to have done. The people in the Middle East when he was negotiating appeared to me to be saying I don't know whether he really plans on doing something or whether he's distracting the American people from his problem. That's a position that the President can't be in. It isn't a fault of the court system, it's the fault of the President.
SA- What did you think about Gov. Geringer declining to attend a Governor's conference, I don't remember the exact name of it. Because of questions about the President's morality? Are you familiar with that?
ME-Yes I certainly am and I applaud the governor for his decision. It was a personal decision, it was a decision made after a lot of consideration. It was a message that he wanted to send out about government officials needing to be accountable. It wasn't one that said the President was definitely guilty, but it was one that said when we're in this kind of position we have to choose our friends carefully. I know that's a message that he gave his kids and he was demonstrating that same message that he sent to his kids about choosing his friends wisely.
SA-Yes, but of course none of it has been proven, and so I guess it is making an assumption of guilt.
ME- Not necessarily. When I talk to my kids about choosing their friends wisely I'm talking to them about not putting themselves in a position where they appear to be doing things that other kids appear to be doing, whether their really doing it or not.
SA-While we're on a different subject, what did you think of the "Oprah" verdict and the lawsuit and the whole Texas law anyway about insulting vegetables?
ME-All of that was an issue of free speech. We can say things-I just hope that-particularly people on talk shows that have large audiences or people involved in the entertainment field that have large followings, or even sports heroes who have a lot of people looking up to them-are careful about what they say about other people or about food products, or anything else that they could cast a bad light on and hurt people's jobs.
SA-Mike I have a question from your traveling around the state, does the discussion that comes in when people are talking about economic development where they say there is a real conflict in Wyoming, a lot of people actually don't want things to change that much and perhaps really aren't so much for economic development. What do you sense when you're traveling around the state? Is that true?
ME-No, I don't think it is true. I think that people do want to have some kind of economic development. Most of the people in Wyoming have kids, and they want some place for their kids to work in Wyoming should they choose to do that and they want to have good jobs. What we've been having difficulty with is the size of the population in our state. We're just not quite big enough to feed on ourselves. We don't have enough population to create the demand for jobs like the bigger states do that provide jobs for the people in it. So we're having to figure out in every instance how to bring in new businesses and new products. I think that in the past we may have looked to too big a business to bring in for small communities. Now what I'm seeing, and have been seeing for the last couple of years are some tremendous small business efforts across the state. There are some people in a number of communities that I could mention, but I would mention Powell in particular, who have put together a small business incubator. They bring in small businesses, they provide them with the space to work and when they get so big then they have to find their own place, but those businesses are beginning to spin off other businesses. So they've reached that critical size even though they're smaller than some of the towns in Wyoming. But they've had a concerted effort to bring in complimentary businesses to what are in there and to grow the businesses that were already there bigger and make good use of the community college. I think if we do those in our communities not as "what can government do for me" issue, but "what can we use with our own resources and our own community to get some jobs for our kids" I think that will help in Wyoming.
