Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Five zero?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, may I ask the chief cosponsor of the Specter amendment how much time is left on our side?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, of course. Amendment No. 146 (Purpose: To modify the pay-as-you-go requirement of the budget process to require that direct spending increases be offset only with direct spending decreases)

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it seems we are moving irrevocably towards war in the Balkans. It appears that the U.S. forces along with NATO forces will soon be engaged in open warlike activity against Serbian forces. This Senator took the floor in January of 1991, prior to the engagement of our forces in the Persian Gulf, to state my feelings that before any President commits our troops to a military action of this nature, that President should seek the advice, consent, and approval of Congress. Only Congress has the power to declare war; it is quite clear in the Constitution. It is this Senator's strong feeling that this President would be remiss, and we would be shirking our duties, if in fact we did not, today, set aside whatever other business this Senate has, to debate fully a resolution supporting or not supporting the use of our military force in Kosovo. That debate should be held today and the vote should be held today, or tomorrow, but as soon as possible, so we fulfill our constitutional obligations. I said, in 1991, if the President were to engage in war in the Persian Gulf without Congress first acting, not only would it be a violation of the War Powers Act but I think it would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States. I still feel that way, regardless of whether it is President George Bush or President Bill Clinton. So the sounds of war are about us. I am hearing the rumblings that our planes and our pilots might start flying soon, that bombs might start dropping soon. Our military people will be engaged in military activities of a warlike nature. Now is the time and here is the place to debate that. We cannot shirk our constitutional responsibilities. The debate should be held this afternoon. The vote should be held, no later than tonight or early tomorrow, on whether or not this Congress will support that kind of activity in Kosovo. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take just about 3 minutes now and I will speak longer than this later in the day.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to address an unfulfilled obligation we have to our nation's veterans. The problem is a substantial backlog of requests by veterans for replacement and issuance of military medals. Today, I have introduced a bill, the ``Veterans Expedited Military Medals Act of 1999,'' that would require the Department of Defense to end this backlog. I first became aware of this issue a few years ago after dozens of Iowa veterans began contacting my State offices requesting assistance in obtaining medals and other military decorations they earned while serving the country. These veterans had tried in vain--usually for months, sometimes for years--to navigate the vast Pentagon bureaucracy to receive their military decorations. The wait for medals routinely exceeded more than a year, even after intervention by my staff. I believe this is unacceptable. Our nation must continue its commitment to recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans in a timely manner. Addressing this simple concern will fulfill an important and solemn promise to those who served to preserve democracy both here and abroad. Let me briefly share the story of Mr. Dale Homes, a Korean War veteran. Mr. Holmes fired a mortar on the front lines of the Korean War. Stacy Groff, the daughter of Mr. Holmes, tried unsuccessfully for three years through the normal Department of Defense channels to get the medals her father deserved. Ms. Goff turned to me after her letter writing produced no results. My office began an inquiry in January of 1997 and we were not able to resolve the issue favorably until September 1997. Ms. Groff made a statement about the delays her father experienced that sum up my sentiments perfectly: ``I don't think it's fair. . .My dad deserves --everybody deserves--better treatment than that.'' Ms. Groff could not be more correct. Our veterans deserve better than that from the country they served so courageously. Another example that came through my district offices is Mr. James Lunde, a Vietnam-era veteran. His brother in law contacted my Des Moines office last year for help in obtaining a Purple Heart and other medals Mr. Lunde earned. These medals have been held up since 1975. Unfortunately, there is still no determination as to when Mr. Lunde's medals will be sent. The numbers are disheartening and can sound almost unbelievable. For example, a small Army Reserve staff at the St. Louis Office faces a backlog of tens of thousands of requests for medals. So why the lengthy delays? The primary reason DOD officials cite for these unconscionable delays is personnel and other resource shortages resulting from budget cuts and hiring freezes. For example, the Navy Liaison Office has gone from 5 or more personnel to 3 within the last 3 years. Prior to this, the turnaround time was 4-5 months. Budget shortages have delayed the agencies ability to replace employees who have left, and in cases where they can be replaced, the ``learning curve'' in training new employees leads to further delays. Last year, during the debate over the Defense Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to move the Department of Defense to end the backlog of unfulfilled military medal requests. The amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not moved to fix the problem. In fact, according to a recent communication from the Army, the problem has only worsened. The Army currently cites a backlog of 98,000 requests for medals. So today, I am introducing a bill to fix the problem once and for all. My bill directs the Secretary of Defense to allocate resources necessary to eliminate the backlog of requests for military medals. Specifically, the Secretary of Defense shall make available to the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Air Force Personnel Center, the National Archives and Records Administration, and any other relevant office or command, the resources necessary to solve the problem. These resources could be in the form of increased personnel, equipment or whatever these offices need for this problem. In addition, this reallocation of resources is only to be made in a way that ``does not detract from the performance of other personnel service and personnel support activities within the DOD.'' Representative Lane Evans of Illinois has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Veterans organizations have long recognized the huge backlog of medal requests. The Veterans of Foreign Wars supports my legislation. I ask that a copy of the letter of support be included in the record. Our veterans are not asking for much. Their brave actions in time of war deserve our highest respect, recognition, and admiration. My amendment will help expedite the recognition they so richly deserve. Our veterans deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter in support be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to address an unfulfilled obligation we have to our nation's veterans. The problem is a substantial backlog of requests by veterans for replacement and issuance of military medals. Today, I have introduced a bill, the ``Veterans Expedited Military Medals Act of 1999,'' that would require the Department of Defense to end this backlog. I first became aware of this issue a few years ago after dozens of Iowa veterans began contacting my State offices requesting assistance in obtaining medals and other military decorations they earned while serving the country. These veterans had tried in vain--usually for months, sometimes for years--to navigate the vast Pentagon bureaucracy to receive their military decorations. The wait for medals routinely exceeded more than a year, even after intervention by my staff. I believe this is unacceptable. Our nation must continue its commitment to recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans in a timely manner. Addressing this simple concern will fulfill an important and solemn promise to those who served to preserve democracy both here and abroad. Let me briefly share the story of Mr. Dale Homes, a Korean War veteran. Mr. Holmes fired a mortar on the front lines of the Korean War. Stacy Groff, the daughter of Mr. Holmes, tried unsuccessfully for three years through the normal Department of Defense channels to get the medals her father deserved. Ms. Goff turned to me after her letter writing produced no results. My office began an inquiry in January of 1997 and we were not able to resolve the issue favorably until September 1997. Ms. Groff made a statement about the delays her father experienced that sum up my sentiments perfectly: ``I don't think it's fair. . .My dad deserves --everybody deserves--better treatment than that.'' Ms. Groff could not be more correct. Our veterans deserve better than that from the country they served so courageously. Another example that came through my district offices is Mr. James Lunde, a Vietnam-era veteran. His brother in law contacted my Des Moines office last year for help in obtaining a Purple Heart and other medals Mr. Lunde earned. These medals have been held up since 1975. Unfortunately, there is still no determination as to when Mr. Lunde's medals will be sent. The numbers are disheartening and can sound almost unbelievable. For example, a small Army Reserve staff at the St. Louis Office faces a backlog of tens of thousands of requests for medals. So why the lengthy delays? The primary reason DOD officials cite for these unconscionable delays is personnel and other resource shortages resulting from budget cuts and hiring freezes. For example, the Navy Liaison Office has gone from 5 or more personnel to 3 within the last 3 years. Prior to this, the turnaround time was 4-5 months. Budget shortages have delayed the agencies ability to replace employees who have left, and in cases where they can be replaced, the ``learning curve'' in training new employees leads to further delays. Last year, during the debate over the Defense Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to move the Department of Defense to end the backlog of unfulfilled military medal requests. The amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not moved to fix the problem. In fact, according to a recent communication from the Army, the problem has only worsened. The Army currently cites a backlog of 98,000 requests for medals. So today, I am introducing a bill to fix the problem once and for all. My bill directs the Secretary of Defense to allocate resources necessary to eliminate the backlog of requests for military medals. Specifically, the Secretary of Defense shall make available to the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Air Force Personnel Center, the National Archives and Records Administration, and any other relevant office or command, the resources necessary to solve the problem. These resources could be in the form of increased personnel, equipment or whatever these offices need for this problem. In addition, this reallocation of resources is only to be made in a way that ``does not detract from the performance of other personnel service and personnel support activities within the DOD.'' Representative Lane Evans of Illinois has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Veterans organizations have long recognized the huge backlog of medal requests. The Veterans of Foreign Wars supports my legislation. I ask that a copy of the letter of support be included in the record. Our veterans are not asking for much. Their brave actions in time of war deserve our highest respect, recognition, and admiration. My amendment will help expedite the recognition they so richly deserve. Our veterans deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter in support be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. There is a vote now. What is the sequence of the votes that will take place?

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry. After that vote is taken, then the floor will be open for further discussion on the Kosovo issue?

Mr. HARKIN. Which is open for discussion?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I also want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his remarks and I want to associate myself with the remarks by my friend from Wisconsin. It is clearly our objective to make the administration of farm program as fair as possible, recognizing the geographical differences of agriculture in America. Senator Kohl is correct in his observation that farmers need and deserve a reliable risk management program that will not be tied to the political winds of any given year. For that reason, we must do all we can to improve and promote the availability of crop insurance products to farmers across the country. I point out to my colleagues that farmers could have purchased federal catastrophic coverage for a cost of fifty dollars to cover an entire crop. That is a bargain and I am still troubled by the reluctance of some farmers to invest in that minimal amount. Had a farmer made that simple investment in recent years, the amendment by the Senator from Alabama would not be necessary. I am also concerned, as is Senator Kohl, about the effect this amendment may have on administration of the pending farm disaster program. Secretary Glickman came under criticism lately when he announced that payments to farmers would not begin until this summer. I admonish my colleagues that we must take no action that would exacerbate that problem. Farmers in Iowa, in Wisconsin, and in Alabama all need assistance sooner rather than later.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time do we have left?

Mr. HARKIN. OK.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. For example, in Maine, I am told the Governor wants to use it for a tax cut. In Michigan, the Governor wants to use the settlement for college scholarships; no funds for tobacco prevention. The Nevada Governor wants it for college scholarships. New Hampshire's Governor wants the money for education; no proposal on tobacco. In New York, the Governor wants to spend 75 percent for debt relief. In South Dakota, the Governor wants money for prisoners, nothing on tobacco. In Rhode Island, the Governor wants money to cut the car tax. That is all well and good, but that is not what this is about. I say to my friends, we have a statement of policy from the Executive Office of the President which says, referring to the emergency supplemental bill, S. 554: Were the bill to be presented to the President with the Senate Committee's proposed offsets and several objectionable riders discussed below, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. One of the provisions: A provision that would completely relinquish the Federal taxpayers' share of the Medicaid-related claims in the comprehensive State tobacco settlement without any commitment whatsoever by the States to use those funds to stop youth smoking. Federal taxpayers paid more than half, an average of 57 percent of Medicaid smoking-related expenditures. The Administration believes that the States should retain those funds but should make a commitment that the Federal share of the settlement's proceeds will be spent on shared national and State priorities: to reduce youth smoking, protect tobacco farmers, improve public health and assist children. So there we have it. If this amendment stays in there untouched, the President's senior advisors will recommend a veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the arguments made by the author of the amendment, Senator Torricelli--of course, I am a cosponsor of the amendment--and the very lucid and well thought out arguments of my friend from Connecticut. First I will respond to my friend from Connecticut by saying that he used the word ``ill-timed'' on a number of occasions in his argument. I quite disagree with my friend on that. I believe this is perfect timing. What are we talking about here? We are on a supplemental appropriations bill. We are making some cuts someplace. We are spending money. We are trying to reach some emergency spending moneys that we need, and we are all looking for places to save money. Here is one place we can save some money. That is what this is about, too. If there is one thing I continually hear from my constituents in Iowa and from people around the country, it is, ``How much more money are you going to pour down that rat hole?'' How much more money are we going to spend on these special prosecutors that go on and on and on? I think the timing is very appropriate right now, when we are on an appropriations bill talking about how much money we are spending and how much money we can save to meet critical needs in this country. I think it is very appropriately timed on this legislation. Mr. President, the Starr investigation has been traumatic for this country, it has been divisive for our national fabric, and these gaping wounds need to be healed. The focus so far has been on allowing the independent counsel statute to lapse on the assumption that it will put an end to the episode. In reality, that is far from the case. The independent counsel statute will lapse on June 30, but it does not put an end to the ongoing investigations. Keep in mind that the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey and others, of which I am a cosponsor, basically goes just to those investigations that have been ongoing for over 3 years. There are a couple that are less than 3 years. Our amendment does not touch them. We are only answering the three--actually there are four. The Senator from Connecticut mentioned the fourth one. It caught me by surprise and I had to look it up. It turns out the fourth one is an ongoing investigation into Secretary of HUD Samuel R. Pierce. If I am not mistaken, he was Secretary of HUD under Ronald Reagan. They still have an investigation going on him. It just goes to show you, these things just go on year after year after year. What we are saying is, if we have an independent counsel who has been operating for more than 3 years, in 6 months--by the end of this year-- they have to close up shop and turn it over to the Justice Department. We are not saying that no one will be let off. No appeal is going to be dropped. No valid investigative lead will be abandoned. The cases will be pursued in keeping with Justice Department rules by some of the most experienced prosecutors in the country. Again, I point out there is little doubt that these cases will be under scrutiny internally at the Justice Department, certainly by the media and by the Congress. We have a President, an Executive, of one party, Congress run by another party. I daresay there are going to be some checks and balances here. Anyone who thinks this can be smothered by the Justice Department does not recognize how this town works. What it will do is save us a lot of money, and that is what I keep hearing about from my constituents. Until I started looking at this independent counsel law during the impeachment trial we had in the Senate, I had not paid all that much attention to it. In fact, I admit freely, when the extension passed in 1993, I was one of those who voted to extend it. I wish now I had not, because I think it has run amok. That is why I will be in favor of letting it expire on June 30. In looking at this, I was trying to find out how Ken Starr could rack up a bill between $40 million and $50 million in less than 3 years. How could that be possible? I began trying to find the line items where he was spending the money. Guess what I found out. We cannot get that information. I can go to the Department of Agriculture and I can find out where every last nickel they spend goes. I can go to the Defense Department and find out exactly where every nickel they spend goes. They have to line item everything. That is true of any branch of Government but not of the independent counsel. Believe it or not, you cannot find out where he is spending the money. All they have to put it under is general broad categories, summaries. For example, here is a bill, and this came from the Los Angeles Times. They said they paid $30,517 for psychological analysis of evidence in the suicide of former White House lawyer Vincent Foster by the same Washington group that looked into the untimely death of rock musician Kurt Cobain. What is that all about? Then there is $370 a month in parking. We do not know who for or what for, but it is there, $370 a month. Here is $729,000 on five private investigators who were hired to supplement dozens of FBI agents. What did it go for? Where did that money go? We do not know. Here is a report that Mr. Starr paid $19,000 a month in rent at a luxury apartment building for staff members--19,000 bucks a month? I would like to know what he was renting. Again, we do not know because we cannot get into the line items. That is just another glaring deficiency in this huge loophole that we opened with the independent counsel law. It is, in fact, a fourth branch of Government with no checks and balances and no accountability to Congress. Despite the fact that Mr. Starr made his referral to Congress, it was considered and dispensed with through a long, tortuous episode in the House and long, tortuous episode in the Senate with the impeachment trial. According to newspaper accounts, Mr. Starr has no plans to wind things down. In fact, there are indications he may keep the investigation going not for 1 year, not for 2 years, but for 3 more years. That is why we are offering our amendment; cut funding in 6 months for any independent counsel investigation that has been ongoing for 3 years or more. That is enough time. The Starr investigation has been going now for almost 5 years, and I think we are pretty darn close to $50 million, maybe more by now. We are just saying, during these 6 months, to Mr. Starr and these other independent counsel, even the one who is investigating Samuel Pierce from the Reagan administration, it is time to put their books together and make any referrals for any additional action or investigations to the Attorney General. This deadline gives plenty of time to the independent counsel to finish their work. And, again, if there is any problem, the American people can rest assured that these cases will be handled by a specialized office of the Justice Department that has been doing this for over 20 years. I think we have all concluded that the independent counsel law is fatally flawed. Under these circumstances, it would be a mistake to let the Starr investigation continue on indefinitely without any end date, without any oversight, without any rein on prosecutorial excess, without any rein on money. I think we ought to listen to people and let the country move on. Mr. Starr has had long enough to investigate Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges against the President. We dispensed with them. I think 6 months is long enough to wrap things up. Make the referrals he deems necessary so we can put this behind us. Again, I just point out, Mr. President, that Mr. Starr is sort of like a gold-plated energizer bunny--his investigation keeps going on and on, and the money just keeps going up and up and up. Twenty independent counsel investigations have been initiated since 1978, at a cost estimated at nearly $150 million. Here is one. Donald Smaltz began his $17 million investigation of former Ag Secretary Espy in November 1994. He filed 30 counts. The jury threw them all out. The jury threw them all out. He spent $17 million. What happened? Well, it sure ruined Agriculture Secretary Espy, I can tell you that; but the jury found him innocent--$17 million. David Barrett began his investigation, which I understand is now around $7 million, of former Housing Secretary Cisneros in May of 1995. So the bills just keep getting racked up. The independent counsel keep going, and the people of this country are wondering, What in the heck are we doing? Here we are on an appropriations bill, we are trying to scrounge every nickel, every penny we need to meet the critical needs of people in this country. We have it in the farm sector. We have a lot of critical needs in rural America, I can tell you that right now, with the devastating crop prices and livestock prices. And we are looking for money for some assistance for farmers. We can't find it. Yet we have millions for Ken Starr and for all these other investigators to just keep living in luxury apartments and running up the bills to the taxpayers with no accountability. So that is why I think we have to do this. Six months is long enough. I do not know what the Governmental Affairs Committee will report out, when they report it out. It is my own observation that when this law expires on June 30 there are not the votes here to extend it. Some people may want to extend it, but I do not think there will be the 60- plus votes necessary to extend that law. But that does not make any difference; the ones that are going on now can just keep right on going. I just think it is time to heed the common wisdom of the people of this country and shut the spigot off and turn it over to the Justice Department by the end of the year. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30?

Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know----

Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a time allotment or not?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might.