John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. We yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. President. I will conclude the remarks, and if Senator Kerrey has remarks to make, of course we would love to hear them. I have listened this morning to the remarks from all of these distinguished Senators on this wonderful day honoring this extraordinary man. This is a man who loves others more than he loves himself, a man who loves his country more than he loves himself. I have to say, Senator Kerrey, I think your mother had it right when you were lying on that hospital bed in Philadelphia after your operation that removed part of your leg when she said, ``There's an awful lot left.'' There is an awful lot left, and we Americans are the beneficiaries of what is left. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the order we intend to follow to speak on this resolution will be myself first, followed by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, Senator Moynihan will speak next, followed by Senator Reid from Nevada. Mr. President, this resolution is supported by all Senators, other than Senator Kerrey. I will talk for just a moment about how I got to know Senator Kerrey and what I have learned about him. Senator Kerrey and I first met about 2 years ago when I was looking for a new job, the job that I presently have as U.S. Senator from North Carolina. At the time, Senator Kerrey was the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. I came here to Washington to meet with Senator Kerrey and was grilled by him on why I was seeking this office, what my motivations were, and why I thought I should be able to represent the people of North Carolina in this esteemed body. Over the course of brief time through campaigning and spending lots of time together, we have gotten to know each other very well. He is the definition of a leader, in my mind. Here is a man who is independent, clear thinking, always willing to speak his mind regardless of the politics, willing to speak against his own political party if he believes that his position is right and just, who cares a great deal and empathizes for the plight of others. He has done an extraordinary job during the time I have seen him work here in the Senate during the brief time that I have been here. He is the kind of Senator who many of us young Senators would like to emulate. I want to talk for just a minute about the events that give rise to this resolution. Thirty years ago this past Sunday, Senator Kerrey, when he was a Navy SEAL, commanded a unit of Navy SEALs that were involved in an attack on the Vietcong. His unit scaled a 350-foot shear cliff in order to position themselves for the attack. During the course of the attack on the Vietcong, a grenade exploded at the feet of Senator Kerrey. He was severely injured by the grenade, but in spite of these severe injuries, which eventually led to the loss of a part of his leg, he continued to direct the attack in a clear- thinking way that eventually led to victory by this Navy SEAL team. The work he did on that day was extraordinarily courageous and showed the leadership that we have come to know over the last 30 years since that event occurred. He went from that event to winning the Medal of Honor for the events that occurred on that day, and from that place to a veterans hospital in Philadelphia for a long, long period of recuperation. I will first read the last sentence of that citation that he received at the time he received his Medal of Honor, which I think encapsulates what Senator Kerrey did 30 years ago this past Sunday. Kerrey's courageous and inspiring leadership, valued fighting spirit, and tenacious devotion to duty in the face of almost overwhelming opposition sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval service. The courage and leadership that Senator Kerrey showed on that day, as I mentioned earlier, led to his receipt of the Medal of Honor. From there, he went to a veterans hospital in Philadelphia for a long, long period of recuperation and, as he has told many of his friends and colleagues, it was a very difficult time for him. He went from there to becoming a successful businessman, and he eventually became Governor of Nebraska. That led to the time he has spent here in the U.S. Senate. As I mentioned, Senator Kerrey is a man who most of us look up to; he is clear thinking and independent minded. The thing that always inspires me about him is his willingness to speak up even when speaking up is not always in his best political interest or in the best political interest of his party. He, as I mentioned, is the definition of a leader. I want to mention one quote that I think is critically important in understanding the kind of leadership that Senator Kerrey has brought to this body during the time he has been here. It is a quote that he gave recently to a Nebraska newspaper: It's odd to say, but this all became a real gift in many ways. Speaking now of the events that occurred 30 years ago this past Sunday and the injuries he received as a result: It's odd to say, but this all became a real gift in many ways. The world got bigger to me. I didn't realize there was so much pain in the world. Up until then, I presumed that if I didn't feel it, then it wasn't happening. But it's going on out there every day. In hospitals. In lots of homes. I learned that the most valuable, priceless thing you can give anyone is kindness. At the right moment, it can be life- changing. That is a perfect description of Senator Bob Kerrey. It is the reason that he is the extraordinary man and the extraordinary leader and the extraordinary Senator that he has been in this body, and he is the reason that I support, with great enthusiasm, this resolution honoring him. At this time, I yield for the junior Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Rhode Island proceeds, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes so that Senators who are present will be allowed to speak.

Mr. EDWARDS. How much time remains?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Beane, a fellow on my staff from the Department of the Army, be allowed floor privileges during the course of this Congress for all matters relating to defense.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair. It is a great honor for me to help cosponsor this particular piece of legislation. The truth is that the TRICARE system, which covers over 6 million Americans and over 300,000 North Carolinians is broken and it needs to be fixed. Senator Hutchison's amendment goes a long way toward addressing the problems of the TRICARE system. It begins by setting minimum standards which the system clearly needs. What I would like to do is talk just briefly today about why this is so important to Americans, and why it is so important to the people of North Carolina. And there are three or four examples that I think show that very clearly. We have had lots of correspondence, lots of calls about problems with the TRICARE system. Comdr. Ronald Smith, who is from the Greensboro area in North Carolina, Guilford County, which is one of the most populous counties in North Carolina, tells us stories about the fact that in Greensboro there is no primary care provider who is willing to provide medical care for his soldiers and their dependents. One example of the problem that creates is of a female soldier who had to travel to a different county to be treated, and when she went there, she had to actually write a check for a copayment before they would allow her to leave. A second problem that Commander Smith tells us about is the problem pharmacies have getting reimbursed for their prescriptions. An example he gave was a soldier who had a case of the flu, a bad case of the flu, and needed prescription medication. But when the soldier went to get the prescription medication, she learned that she had to make a payment, cash payment, and didn't have the money. So this soldier had to actually go out and obtain a loan in order to get the prescription medication that she needed to treat the flu. Another example of this problem is a soldier who was taking blood pressure medication that was critical to that soldier's health. The soldier put off for over a week taking the blood pressure medication because she didn't have the money to pay the cash that was needed to get the prescription medication. This is a serious problem. These are problems that need to be addressed. A Sergeant Williams, who is from Fayetteville, NC, where the Womack Army Hospital is located, told me a story about his daughter which was really amazing. His daughter had a problem with a small rash. She went to the Womack Army Hospital and got a dermatology consult. That was easy to do because the hospital is located nearby. Then he tried to schedule a number of office appointments for his daughter, but they kept being canceled. And then he decided, well, maybe I need to take her to see a private physician, perhaps at Duke in Durham, which is a little over an hour away. And he was told if he did that, he would have to make an out-of-pocket cash payment of $300 to have her seen. He was finally able to get something scheduled for her. At the time of his letter to me, it had been over 80 days since her initial consult and this rash, which began as a very small, inconsequential rash, had then spread over her entire body. This is a serious problem. It is one that needs to be addressed, and it is one that Senator Hutchison's amendment addresses very directly. I do think that what we are here about is not increasing health care costs, but increasing efficiency. I think Senator Hutchison has some wonderful provisions in this amendment to address that problem. We have an obligation to honor the commitment that the soldiers and their dependents have made to this country, and we need to provide quality health care to these folks. They deserve it. They have made an extraordinary commitment to this country. This country needs to show its commitment to the soldiers who have served and are serving and their dependents. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This TRICARE system needs to be fixed, and this amendment goes a long way towards fixing it. I yield the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. That is correct.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I have prepared remarks. But I am not going to use them. I made that decision about 20 minutes ago. I have been sitting, listening to my fellow Senators speak, and I want to speak to you from the heart. I want to speak to you about a struggle, because I have been through a struggle. It is a real struggle. And I suspect that there are an awful lot of you who have been through the same struggle--both before we voted on the motion to dismiss and, for me, since we voted on the motion to dismiss. For me, the law is a sacred thing. And that is part of my life. I have seen what the law can do. It is a powerful, powerful thing. It can do extraordinary things for ordinary people. And I believe we have been given a sacred responsibility. I will tell you what that sacred responsibility means to me personally. It means that when I walked in here the first day of this impeachment trial I was 100 percent completely open to voting to remove this President. And I have to tell you all something, my friends on this side of the aisle, that wasn't a hard thing for me to do. I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen. So I said to myself, what is the right and fair thing to do? And this is what I have done. I have looked--many times until 3 a.m. in the morning--at the evidence in this case. Because I think that is the way we need to make this decision. The perjury charge, I believe, is just not there. The evidence is not there to support it. I know many of you believe it is there. I respect your view on that. I don't believe it is there. The obstruction charge is a totally different matter. And this is the way I have thought about the obstruction charge. I view, in my mind's eye, the scales of justice. And on one side, where the prosecution makes an allegation, I put their evidence. On the other side I put the defense evidence. And I do believe that for a charge this serious that the proper standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. So after that evidence is put on both sides of the scale of justice, what happens? I want to just very briefly go through what I think are the four main charges for obstruction. First, the false affidavit. The prosecution side: There is, in my judgment, clearly a false affidavit. The President had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky about filing an affidavit where he said to her, ``You can file an affidavit; that might be a way for you to avoid testifying.'' That is on the prosecution side. I want to make a really important point for me personally here. I think there is an enormous difference between what has been proven and what we suspect, because I have to tell you all, I suspect a lot that has not been proven. What is on the defense side? On the defense side: what has been proven in this case is that President Clinton never saw the affidavit, never had a discussion with anyone about the contents of that affidavit. He didn't know what was in it. He never told, according to her, Monica Lewinsky or anyone what should be in the affidavit. So that is the evidence on the scales of justice: One for the prosecution; that evidence for the defense. For me it is a very clear thing. The scales tilt in favor of the defense, and they certainly don't tilt strongly enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The second charge--and the one that bothers me the most--coaching Betty Currie. The evidence on the side of the prosecution: President Clinton has a conversation with Betty Currie just after he has been questioned in his deposition where he makes very declarative statements to her--it happens twice--very declarative statements to her about what he remembers, many of which we now know to be false. And his explanation for that conversation lacks credibility, to say the least, that he was trying to refresh his memory. I doubt if anybody buys that. That is on one side, that is on the prosecution side. What is on the other side? On the other side we have Betty Currie saying it had no influence on her. But that is not the most troublesome thing for me. The troublesome thing is this: For that conversation to be obstruction of justice, it must have been proven that it was President Clinton's intent to affect her sworn testimony. Now, what are the other possibilities? We have a man who has just been confronted with this problem, who is political by nature. And do we really believe that the first thing he thought about is, ``I'm going to go protect myself legally''? I suspect the first thing he thought about is ``I'm going to protect myself politically.'' He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out. Do I know which of these things are true? Absolutely not. I don't know which of them are true. Doesn't that answer the question? If we don't know which of those things are true, have they been proven? If we don't know what was in his head at that moment, how can we find that the prosecution has proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt? The third charge, the job search. On the prosecution side of the scales of justice, we have an intensified effort to find a job for Monica Lewinsky. I think that has been proven. I think that has been proven clearly. On the other side, we have testimony from Monica Lewinsky that she was never promised a job for her silence. We have evidence that the job search, although not as intense, was going on before anyone knew she would be a witness. We have Vernon Jordan testifying under oath--I sat there and watched it and looked him in the eye--that there was never a quid pro quo, that the affidavit was over here and the job search was over here. The reality is, when you put all that evidence on the scale-- prosecution evidence on one side, defense evidence on the other--at worst the scale stays even. And the prosecution has got to prove this case in order to remove the President of the United States beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have not proven it no matter what we suspect. No matter what we suspect. So that is the false affidavit which we have talked about, coaching Betty Currie, the job search. Now to the gifts. Let's see what the proof is. What is the proof--not the suspicion. On the prosecution side, we know that the President's secretary went to Monica Lewinsky's house, got the gifts, took them home and hid them under her bed. I have to tell you, on its face, that is awful suspicious, and it is strong, heavy evidence. The problem is, there is evidence on the other side. That evidence doesn't stand alone. First, we have the testimony of Betty Currie that Monica Lewinsky called her. Second, we have the fact that President Clinton gave her other gifts on that Sunday, which makes no sense to me. I heard the House managers try to explain it away. I have been a lawyer for 20 years, and I have been in that place of trying to explain away something that makes no sense. It doesn't make sense. Monica Lewinsky, herself, testified that she brought up the issue of gifts--not President Clinton--and that the most President Clinton ever said was something to the effect of ``I'm not sure. Let me think about that.'' Now when that evidence goes on the defense side and the only evidence on the prosecution side is the fact that those gifts are sitting under the bed of Betty Currie, what happens to the scale? At best, the scale stays even. In my judgment, it actually tilts for the defense. There is no way it rises to the level of ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' Every trial I have ever been in has had one moment, one quintessential moment when the entirety of the trial was described, and in this case we have such a moment. There was a question that had my name on it. The reality is, Senator Kohl wrote it--I tagged on--but it was a great question. The question was, Is this a matter about which reasonable people can differ? I will never forget Manager Lindsey Graham coming to this microphone and his answer was ``Absolutely.'' Now if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this, how can we not have reasonable doubt? These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the President's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment. I have one last thing I want to say to you all, and it is actually most important. If you don't remember anything else I said, and you weren't listening to anything else I have said, please listen to what I am about to say because it is so important to me. I have learned so much during the 30 days that I have been here. I have had a mentor in Senator Byrd, who has probably been a mentor to many others before me. I have formed friendships with people on both sides. Senators Leahy and Dodd, who I worked with on these depositions--wonderful, wonderful Senators. I have learned what leadership is about from these two men sitting right here--Senators Lott and Daschle. I have loved working with Senators DeWine and Thompson. And Senator Specter and I worked together on a deposition. He showed me great deference and respect. I have no idea why, but he did; and I appreciate it. I have deep respect and admiration for my senior Senator from North Carolina, who has been extraordinarily kind and gracious to me since I arrived here. Let me tell you what I will be thinking about when my name is called and I cast my vote, hopefully tomorrow. I will be thinking about juries all over this country who are sitting in deliberation in rooms that are not nearly as grand as this but who are struggling, just as you all have and I have, to do the right thing. I have to say, I have a boundless faith in the American people sitting on those juries. They want to do what is right. They want to do what is right in the worst kind of way. An extraordinary thing has happened to me in the last 30 days. I have watched you struggle, every one of you. I have watched you come to this podium. I have listened to what you have had to say. I talked to you informally; I watched you suffer. I believe in my heart that every single one of you wants to do the right thing. The result of that for me is a gift. And that gift is that I now have a boundless faith in you. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. EDWARDS. I add my praise, Mr. Chief Justice, for the work you have done, but I would add one other thing. The last time I saw you before this impeachment trial you were leading a sing-along at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference. I thought it might be a good idea for this group.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, with regard to their exhibits. Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I would be happy to take advantage of the 5 minutes, but I have talked to the other managers and we are not aware of any corrections that need to be made on any of our exhibits we have offered to the Senate. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.