Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. An F-4. I think $1 million or $1.5 million, something like that for the F-4s and F-8s.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, the Senator from Virginia shows the gentleman that he really is by acknowledging the input of others into this issue, and I appreciate that. But the bill we have before us provides for a $180 bonus payment to any person in the armed services who qualifies for food stamps. That is a great step. I applaud it. I support it wholeheartedly. But, again, in looking at it, I think there are some areas that maybe need to be addressed further, and that is the purpose of my amendment. For example, the $180 bonus applies to service people in the country, in the United States, but not to service people overseas. Again, having served in the military and having been stationed overseas, I can tell you a lot of times it is a lot more expensive, especially if you are stationed in Japan or places like that where it is much more costly, much more expensive than it is for the people here in the States. So what my amendment would do would apply the $180 not just to personnel in the United States but to people overseas. It just extends it to them also. Second, under the bill, the process to get the bonus is they would first have to go to the food stamp office and get some paperwork done and show that they qualify. Then they come back to DOD and give them this documentation. Then they take other documentation back to the USDA. It was kind of a three-step process. What my amendment says is all they have to do is go to their personnel office, their paymaster for example, and say: Look, you know what my pay is. Here is my pay. You know how many dependents I have. The only thing that is missing is spousal income. So they would just document what their spousal income is. The military already has records on their dependents and their pay. And if they qualify, that is the end of it. They do not have to go through this bureaucratic nightmare of going to the USDA office and back and forth; it would be just a one- step process. So my amendment tries to streamline that. Third, again--one of these Catch-22 situations we have here--if you live off base and you get a housing allowance, then that is--let me put it this way: It is counted in whether or not you are eligible for the $180. What my amendment says is if you get housing allowance, that is off the table, that is not counted as part of that, because in a lot of cases, housing allowances are eaten up by housing. It really doesn't add anything to their income. That is the third thing the amendment does. The last thing my amendment does is under the WIC Program, the Women, Infants and Children Program, if you are overseas--you can get it here, but you can't get it overseas. You would get the money in lieu of that. I am told that the average basic WIC allowance is about $32 a month for food; $10.50--is that right?--for administration. It is about $42 a month. That will be added for people who are overseas. If they were here, they could get WIC, but if they are overseas, they can't get it. Again, in terms of how much this costs, 2 years ago, we did have an amendment on the bill asking the DOD to give us the numbers on WIC and food stamps, and we have never received those figures from the Department of Defense. I don't know why we can't get them, but we can't get them. I did get a letter last August. I have to tell you, and I say this in all sincerity to my friend from Virginia, this letter disturbed me a little bit. I am going to read one paragraph of it. It is responding to section 655 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. It required the Department of Defense to conduct a study of the members of the Armed Forces and their families who are at, near, or below the poverty line. It was sent to Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin last August 18. Here is a paragraph that really disturbs me. I quote from the letter: Pay raises targeted to junior enlisted grades with the objective of eliminating poverty or food stamp usage are expensive and not consistent with the objectives of military compensation. Wow. Not consistent with the objectives of military compensation? The Department does not support these measures. Nor does the Department support pay raises that provide greater percentage increases in basic pay and/or allowances to junior members. Such a policy will disadvantage the senior enlisted and officer forces relative to their civilian counterparts. I really don't understand that at all. It will also adversely impact retention, morale, and productivity. Wait a minute, we are going to raise junior enlisted people above the poverty line, give them a bonus in lieu of food stamps here and abroad, and that will adversely impact retention, morale and productivity? I am sorry, I don't understand this.

Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with this Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. I will finish my statement very shortly, Mr. President. Again, this one paragraph really bothers me. Again, I don't understand how the Department of Defense can say that: [It does not] support pay raises that provide greater percentage increases in basic pay and/or allowances to junior members. I can see in terms of basic pay, but not allowances in terms of food stamps, for example. Then they say it will adversely impact retention, morale and productivity. I wish someone would explain that one to me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the executive summary from which I quoted.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, lastly, the chairman, I know, is trying to get some figures from the Department of Defense on how much this costs. We have an estimate right now that the provision in the bill itself that provides for the $180 payment in lieu of food stamps will cost, at most, $26 million a year through the year 2004--$26 million a year through the year 2004. What Senator Bingaman and I are seeking to do is extending this overseas, streamlining the process--that doesn't cost anything--not counting the basic housing allowance and getting the $42 a month in the WIC payments to troops stationed overseas. Mr. President, I will bet you my bottom dollar and anything I have that it will not even double it. It can't double it. It would be impossible to double it because we have more people in the United States than we have stationed overseas. But even if it did double, we are talking about $52 million a year. I think the DOD budget next year is something like $270 billion. We can't afford $52 million? I am saying that would be the maximum if you double it. We would have exactly the same number of people overseas in the same pay grade than we have stationed here, and we know that is not so. I await the figures from the Department of Defense to see what they say. Since they have already given us an estimate of $26 million on the provision in the bill, I will be surprised if it comes in anything more than perhaps-- oh, I will take a guess --$35 million a year probably, just off the top of my head. Even if it doubled it, which it can't--there is no way it can--you are talking about $52 million a year. I think that is a small price to pay to make sure that none of our military people are on food stamps and that they are eligible to get the payment through the WIC Program if they are overseas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from Marilyn Sobke, president of the National Military Family Association, in which she states: The National Military Family Association strongly supports your amendment that would finally extend the benefits of the [WIC] Program to eligible military families stationed overseas.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, we will set my amendment aside and await the figures from the Department of Defense. In the meantime, I hope Senators will support this amendment. It is not going to cost that much, but it has the objective of making sure that no one who puts on the uniform of the United States has to go down and stand in line to get food stamps. If nothing else, we ought to end that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in the bill there is an important provision that allows for $180 to be given to help the enlisted personnel who are on food stamps. We have people in uniform today who are eligible for food stamps. There is a $180 special allowance for military personnel in the bill, if they are eligible for food stamps. All my amendment does is the following. I allows military personnel stationed overseas to receive the same $180 special allowance as those living in the United States. The bill only gives the allowance to people stationed here in the United States. It also streamlines the application process. Right now, if a soldier is eligible for food stamps, they have to go to the food stamp office and get a certification, come back to the military personnel office and then go back to the food stamp office. My amendment allows for a one-step process. With my amendment, all they have to do is go to the military to get certified. Secondly, my amendment allows service people living off base to have the same $180 special allowance eligibility as those living on base, in other words, it disregards the housing allowance when determining eligibility. Next, it allows eligible military families to receive the WIC Program if they are overseas. Right now they can get the WIC Program only if they are stationed in the United States.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I heard some people say I am harming the WIC Program. I disagree. You tell me how fair it is for young soldiers here under the current rules. Military families living in the United States are eligible for WIC, and their wives are pregnant, they have kids, and they are getting the WIC Program, and all of a sudden they are sent overseas. Once they get overseas, they are no longer eligible for the WIC Program. Is that fair? They still have the same needs. All my amendment says is if they are eligible for the WIC Program here in America, they are eligible if they are shipped overseas. The DOD estimates maybe $10 or $20 million more per year in costs. So that is all my amendment does, these modest but important improvement to the underlying bill. It says that if you are a member of the armed forces eligible for a $180 special allowance while stationed in America, you are eligible overseas. That is all it says. If you are eligible for WIC here, you are eligible overseas. It also makes the process streamlined so you do not have to go down to the food stamp office, back to the military, and back to the food stamp office just to qualify for the special allowance. And it treats military housing allowances, as far as eligibility, in a more fair manner. Under the current bill, if you are living on the base you would be eligible for the special subsistence allowance, but if you live off base you may not be eligible because you have the housing allowance. But you use that all up for rent, anyway. This is simply not fair. I think this amendment, again, is one that tries to help people in the military in a fair way. I think it is embarrassing that we have people in the military who have to get food stamps. What this amendment does is end that once and for all, for all military personnel, who should be eligible for some special benefits.

Mr. HARKIN. No.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. A few weeks ago, I used a barnyard term that is quite known in Iowa to describe what I thought of this case. The longer this case has gone on, the more I am convinced this characterization is correct. This case should never have been brought before the Senate. I think it is one of the most blatant partisan actions taken by the House of Representatives since Andrew Johnson's case was pushed through by the radical Republicans of his time. I think it is important for us to take a look at how this case got here. One might ask why is it important how it got here? Well, if you believe that the end justifies the means, it is probably not very important. But if you believe the end doesn't justify the means, that those who are charged with enforcing the law cannot break the law in order to bring someone to the bar of justice, and if you believe the rule of law applies not only to the defendant, the President in this case, but also to the prosecutors and those sworn to uphold that rule of law, then it is important to look at how the case got here. First, we have a statute, the independent counsel statute which at best I believe is flawed and at worst unworkable which allows someone to be targeted without regard to money or time. In fact, it has essentially created a fourth branch of Government with no checks or balances. Again, the conduct, I want to point out, of Ken Starr does not excuse the behavior of the President but has everything to do with our perspective on the case and how we approach it, how we weigh our decision. We are not jurors, we are judges and the supreme Court of Impeachment, which has some of the elements of a court of equity. If somebody approaches this court, they better do it with clean hands. Where the political motivation is so blatant, as it has been in this case, I think we in the Senate should have our guard up, not only on what the case is about, but how it got here. This is the sort of political impeachment case that Madison and Hamilton wanted to avoid, and I refer you to Federalist Paper No. 65, and Hamilton warned the greatest danger would be ``that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' That is why he argued for it to come to the Senate and have a two-thirds requirement in order to convict and remove. So in the beginning, Ken Starr is picked by a three-judge panel to investigate Whitewater. Whitewater turns into Travelgate. Travelgate turns into Filegate, and then one wonders, how did Monica Lewinsky ever drop in on this? If we look back, when Ken Starr was a private attorney, in 1994, he had dealings with Paula Jones' attorneys in terms of her then-pending lawsuit. So he had prior involvement himself with the Paula Jones case. So the Paula Jones case proceeds forward. And in October of 1997, an entity called the Rutherford Institute, funded by conservative forces in the United States, found some new attorneys for Paula Jones and became heavily involved in the case. Now some time around that time, Linda Tripp, with whom Monica Lewinsky had shared her most intimate details of her involvement with the President, begins talking with these attorneys. That is sort of the status of the case as of December 1997. And here I ask unanimous consent to have printed an article from the New York Times, dated January 24, which more or less documents this.

Mr. HARKIN. So now we have the involvement of Linda Tripp giving information to Paula Jones' attorneys. From about late October, early November until January 1998, a lawyer by the name of Jerome Marcus in Philadelphia, who has done extensive work for the Jones legal team, had been talking to a friend of his, Paul Rosenzweig, a prosecutor in Mr. Starr's office, about the Lewinsky matter. We didn't know the exact nature of these discussions, but we do know they talked a number of times. But we do know that on January 8 Marcus contacted Rosenzweig and told him about the relationship of Monica Lewinsky and the President. Right after this, Linda Tripp contacts the Office of Independent Counsel to talk about Lewinsky and tells them about the tapes she has made, the telephone tapes, the tapes of her telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. The day after that, Tripp is wired by FBI agents working with Starr, meets with Lewinsky, and records their conversation without Lewinsky's knowledge--and doing this without any authorization to do it. They didn't get it until 4 days later. Now, all this is done prior to President Clinton ever giving a deposition or testifying before a grand jury. And so Clinton has done nothing yet in terms of testifying. So one might ask, What was Starr and his team after? If, in fact, this was a consensual sexual relationship between Clinton and a young woman who was an adult, what did it have to do with Whitewater or anything else they were investigating? Well, here is why it had something to do with it. Let me quote from an article written by Joseph Isenburgh, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. I happen to have read it because he was supporting this findings of fact procedure, and I wanted to see what his thoughts were. But later on in his treatise he said this: What is perverse about the impeachment of President Clinton is the idiotic premise on which it rests. The President wasn't forced to respond to judicial process in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit because he committed a crime of paramount public concern. That case, remember, was dismissed as meritless. I am continuing to quote him: The misconduct at issue here had no independent significance. It is, itself, merely a byproduct of a judicial process directed at the President, essentially of a ``sting'' set-up in the courts. ``A `sting' set-up in the courts.'' That is what Ken Starr and the Jones attorneys, working in tandem, were doing, setting him up. And you can see this clearly when you watch Clinton on videotape in the deposition before the Paula Jones attorneys. They present him with this definition of ``sexual relations'' that even the judge herself said was confusing. They knew what they were going after. But President Clinton did not know that they had all this information about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky--a classic sting operation. Also, keep in mind that Linda Tripp briefed the Paula Jones attorneys the night before that deposition and gave them the tapes of her telephone conversations. In light of this, it is interesting to note that in today's New York Times, February 10, the conduct of the independent counsel is so suspect and potentially violative of Justice Department policy and law that he now is under investigation for a number of reasons which I won't read. But I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. And you can read it in today's New York Times.

Mr. HARKIN. So I just want to end this part of my discussion by saying we have heard a lot about the rule of law recently, about how it applies. Now, how about how it applies to those who are supposed to enforce the law, how it applies to Ken Starr and the Office of Independent Counsel? Mr. Hyde went on many times in his opening and closing arguments about what this teaches our kids about honesty and truthfulness, that the rule of law means something. Well, yes, it means something. It means something to our kids and future generations that honesty and truthfulness and the rule of law also applies to those who are cloaked with the authority to enforce that law. We must teach our kids that the ends do not justify the means, that law enforcement officials cannot break the law in order to bring someone to the bar of justice. So now, in this long process, the case is before the House Judiciary Committee. And only Ken Starr testifies on the facts. He gives them all these documents. But it is interesting to note, he does that before the election. He waits until after the election to give them all the Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate charges, which he drops. That happens after the election. They hear Ken Starr. And it is interesting to note that at the end of his long testimony, every Republican on the House Judiciary Committee gives him a standing ovation. What kind of political statement does that make? This was nothing like the kind of balanced evidentiary material given the Judiciary Committee in the House by Leon Jaworski in the Watergate case concerning then-President Nixon. So in summary, what we have here is an out-of-control independent counsel with his own political agenda and vendetta, a blank check to spend millions to look into every nook and cranny of President Clinton's public as well as personal life. You add this to a zealous group of House Republican Judiciary Committee members who fanned the flames, and some Members who already, prior to this, filed a resolution to impeach the President. What you have here is a blatant, vindictive political case. The American people figured it out a long time ago. They know the truth of what happened. And the truth is very simple. The President had a consensual, illicit affair with a young woman. He tried to cover it up. He misled others to cover it up. That is the truth. All this other stuff we are delving into is the details of about who touched who where, how many times they met, who exchanged gifts. The truth is simple and straightforward, and the American people figured it out, and they have a judgment about this. They said it is wrong, but it's personal. And he violated his marriage oath, not his oath of office. It is a sin, but not a crime. It is between him and his wife and his family and his God. And it is not an impeachable offense. I have said many times the American people can abide sin but not hypocrisy. Throughout this entire case, hypocrisy abounds. Much has been said about the rule of law and the truthfulness and honesty regarding President Clinton. How about as it applies to Starr? How about truthfulness, when he doesn't include, in his presentation, that very important statement that Monica Lewinsky said: ``No one ever asked me to lie''? How about honesty when it comes to him not providing exculpatory material? Having failed to get Bill Clinton on the stated reasons for the independent counsel--on Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate--they shift to illicit sex and a classic sting operation. So we are left with two charges. Perjury. This falls far short, and there is no evidence to support the fact that he perjured himself before the jury. Evasive? Yes. Dodging? Yes. But not knowingly making a false statement under oath material to the case. Doesn't fit. Second article. Obstruction of justice. The House managers built their case on what they called the seven pillars of obstruction, which we have seen turned out to be seven sand castles of speculation. I think the most telling point was Monica Lewinsky, on her own tape last Saturday, when Mr. Bryant asked her, ``You didn't have a personal reason to file a false affidavit?'' And she said, ``Yes, I did.'' He said, ``Why?'' She said, ``Because I didn't want to get involved with the Jones case. I didn't think it was any of their business.'' End of story on obstruction because everything else rests on that. That is why I have said, the more we look at this case, the more it is a counterfeit case. Like a counterfeit dollar bill, even to a trained eye, you look and it may look real, but you put it under a microscope and you see it's counterfeit. That's what happened in this case. The House managers' case was based on inferences and conjecture. The White House's case was based on direct facts in evidence, and that is the difference. In closing, two wrongs don't make a right. President Clinton did have an illicit affair. It was wrong and demeaning. Ken Starr abused justice, set up a sting operation, the wiring of Linda Tripp, the leaks, the salacious material. Clinton's wrong, I submit, was more of a sin. Ken Starr's wrong is more of a crime. The damage to the rule of law is done more by Ken Starr than by Bill Clinton. At the beginning, I said the House had a heavy burden, given the history and partisanship of this case, to prove articles I and II and that they rise to an impeachable level. They never met that burden. Accordingly, I will vote not guilty on both charges. Finally, as you know, there has been much talk of a censure resolution. As I said before, I said I believe the appropriate form is for each Senator to express his or her opinion on this matter. I personally see no need to join 99 others, and in doing so, set a dangerous precedent that could be easily abused in the future. So here is my censure of the President. I want to state emphatically, I do not condone his behavior that has been so thoroughly exposed and seared in the American conscious ad nauseam. It is the sordid affair of all sordid affairs. The President brought dishonor to himself. He brought tremendous pain and embarrassment to his family, friends and colleagues. And rather than ennobling the Presidency, his behavior has been the butt of jokes and ridicule. This behavior was totally at odds with his many achievements and conduct in his official capacity as President. The President has stated clearly he has sinned and that he has misled his family, his friends, his staff, and the American people. He has said that he is sorry and he has asked for forgiveness. I do so now and say it is time to put this sad chapter behind us; move on to the important work of this Nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, again, I ask consent that I be able to ask the majority leader a question regarding the ethics.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I object.

Mr. HARKIN. I could do whatever----

Mr. HARKIN. I have a question regarding the ethics rules. Under this proposed motion, could a Senator give his or her statement in public and then give the same statement in closed session and still not violate the ethics rules? I am concerned about how we might want to follow that. I yield to the head of the Ethics Committee for clarification.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of S. 373, the Forced and Indentured Child Labor Prevention Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of S. 373, the Forced and Indentured Child Labor Prevention Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Are Senators allowed to attend these depositions or not?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, in accordance with rule V of the Senate's Standing Rules, I filed a motion of intent to move to suspend the rules to open debate on this motion to subpoena witnesses. The motion is at the desk. It is No. 5, I believe.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I just have a modification that I would like to discuss with the leader, a brief modification of that, that would not engender an objection.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I reserve the right to object. OK, I don't have any----

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, in accordance with rule V of the Senate Standing Rules, I and Mr. Wellstone filed a notice of intent to move to suspend the rules solely regarding the debate by Senators on the motion to dismiss, so Senators can have open rather than a closed debate on this issue. This motion is offered on behalf of myself and Senators Wellstone, Feingold, Leahy, Lieberman, Johnson, Inouye, Schumer, Wyden, Kerrey, Bayh, Torricelli, Lautenberg, Robb, Dodd, Murray, Dorgan, Conrad, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Boxer, Graham, Bryan, Landrieu, and Mikulski. My motion is at the desk. However, Mr. Chief Justice, I send a corrected copy of my motion to the desk. There were two typos in it; I want to have it corrected. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.