Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if there is a moment, I wish to commend the Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina again on their amendment. The DOD has been working hard to improve the delivery of medical care through the TRICARE program. This amendment gives strong encouragement to the Secretary of Defense to broaden the services which were provided under the TRICARE system. It is important that these services be provided to military members and their families. It is important to improve the claims and the reimbursement process, and to make benefits under the TRICARE program uniform across the country. So, again, I thank the Senators from Texas and North Carolina and their supporters for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. LEVIN. No objection. We support that.

Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate our good friend from Minnesota for this amendment. This is a very, very, perceptive amendment. What he is doing here is requiring that the Comptroller General make a study in a report to the Department of Defense on policies that would protect the confidentiality of communications between military dependents who are victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault or intrafamily abuse or who have engaged in such misconduct; and therapists, counselors and advocates from whom the victim seeks professional services. The Senator has pointed out that without this confidentiality, the victims of this kind of abuse and behavior are a lot less likely to use what is available to them in terms of counseling, medical services and protection. This becomes a very essential ingredient in protecting the victims of this kind of abuse. Without this confidentiality, we don't have the necessary protection that will give the assurance to these victims. I want to commend Senator Wellstone and Senator Murray for this amendment. I hope it has prompt and swift approval of this body.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if it is OK with the floor managers, that immediately following disposition of an amendment which I understand is going to be offered by Senator Cleland, that the Chair then recognize the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me, again, commend our friend from Virginia for his leadership in this area. This is one of our greatest areas of shortfall. It is one of our greatest retention problems. We have to try to do better to retain our pilots, and this amendment will go a long way, indeed, the administration proposal-- hopefully it is in their proposal--will go, we believe at least, some way in terms of retaining pilots as its goal. It is a very important goal. I, again, thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership in zeroing in on some of the greatest problems that we face in our defense budget, and that is the retention problem of pilots. So we very strongly support this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I am on my feet, if I could also thank Senator Robb for the previous amendment. I was not here. I had to leave for a moment. But it is a very important amendment which we just adopted. We did it in a few moments, but this increased special and incentive pay provision that Senator Robb has now inserted in this bill is targeted at critical specialties where services are having a significant retention problem. It is very important that we do that. This provision was in the budget which was submitted to us, but it was not included in this pay bill. It should have been. I think it was a significant oversight that it was not. That oversight has been corrected by Senator Robb, who is here, as always, watching very, very closely and carefully to make sure that we do the right thing by our troops and by our defense and by our security needs. I thank him for determining that this was left out of a bill which is aimed at supporting our troops, and should not have been. Because of his energy and his perception, it is now back in the bill. I thank him for it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me also commend Senator Hagel for his speech. He inevitably is on the floor when we have a defense authorization bill or an item related closely to it, as this bill is. He is here, fervently urging support of our men and women in our uniformed military. I just want to say that voice is a particularly powerful voice, given Senator Hagel's background. I again compliment him and thank him for the ongoing commitment. He has not forgotten where he came from, as we sometimes say, and it is very important that we hear such strong voices as Senator Hagel's.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew Varzally and John Bradshaw of Senator Wellstone's staff have floor privileges during consideration of S. 4.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Members of this body are keenly aware of the demands we place on our troops, the circumstances in which they live and work and the fact we often pay them less and expect them to do far more than employers in the private sector. I commend Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for recognizing that military recruitment and retention has begun to suffer and for acting forcefully to address this problem. The fiscal year 2000 defense budget includes funding for an across- the-board increase in military salaries, targeted pay raises to better reward performance, and a change to the military retirement system to place service members who entered after 1986 on a footing more comparable to those who entered the service at an earlier date. These changes should help provide fairer compensation to our men and women in uniform, and we should act together to enact them into law. The bill before us contains provisions similar to those proposed by Secretary Cohen's budget, but there are several ways in which the benefits offered by S. 4 are even more generous. It includes the following: First, the administration proposal contains a 4.4-percent across-the-board pay increase. S. 4 contains a 4.8-percent pay raise. Second, the administration budget assumes, but does not require, pay raises of 3.9 percent a year for the remainder of the FYDP. S. 4 mandates in permanent law raises of .5 percent more than the employment cost index. Third, the administration proposal would restore the same 50 percent of base pay for post-1986 retirees as for pre-1986 retirees. S. 4 would provide the same change while also restoring the more generous pre-1986 full CPI COLAs. Under S. 4, post-1986 retirees could accept a one-time, lump-sum payment of $30,000 and opt out of this generous retirement system. Fourth, S. 4 authorizes active duty service members to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan for Federal employees. The administration proposal contained no similar provision. Fifth, S. 4 contains a special allowance for service members who are eligible to receive food stamps. The administration proposal contained no similar provision. And sixth, S. 4 contains provisions first proposed by Senator Cleland and consistent with the recommendations of the Congressional Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance to improve the educational benefits provided to service members through the GI bill. The administration proposal contained no similar provision. I have some concerns about a number of these provisions, but there is little doubt that they would substantially improve the pay and benefits available to members of the Armed Forces. The GI bill provisions, in particular, should provide substantial incentives to help address the current recruiting and retention problems facing the military services, while offering our men and women in uniform an educational opportunity in the proudest tradition of our country. For this reason, I agree with the sponsors of the bill that we should do what we can to make these benefits a reality. So on that question, I hope there is no Member of this body, and I know there is no member of the Armed Services Committee not in agreement that we should do what we can to make these benefits in S. 4 a reality. But the question is, How can we best make that happen. Do we best serve the interests of the troops by bringing this bill to the floor for consideration before we have passed a budget resolution and before we know whether money will be available to pay for this bill? Do we best serve our troops by separating the pay and the benefits issues from the rest of the authorization, even if that can force us to delay improvements in living and working conditions, and even if that forces us to postpone the introduction of new equipment? Or would we better serve the interest of our troops by considering the provisions of this bill in our normal authorization process after the budget resolution has been passed and we have had an opportunity to conduct hearings on the specifics of the proposal in our Personnel Subcommittee? Madam President, I want to alert my colleagues that regardless of whether we pass this bill now or later, we will have to face up to some significant issues down the road. Our military leaders have told us that they want us to change the military retirement system, but the proposals in S. 4 are very different from their proposal. Indeed, Secretary Cohen and General Shelton recently testified that they would support the added benefits in this bill only if--and I emphasize only if--they are paid for without cutting into other defense programs. At this point in the legislative cycle, before we have agreed upon a budget, we cannot give them that assurance, and we cannot give our troops that assurance. For this reason, the Secretary of Defense wrote the committee last Friday to express strong concerns about whether this bill could be paid for without an adverse impact on national defense. My good friend, Senator Warner, has read the letter, but I am just going to focus on a couple of paragraphs in that letter because of Secretary Cohen's concerns about whether this bill could be paid for without an adverse impact on the national defense. Here is what Secretary Cohen wrote in part: S. 4 proposes even larger pay raises, higher cost-of-living adjustments, and other items which are not in the budget I submitted. I estimate that these . . . items will cost $7 billion in discretionary funding through FY2005. I am concerned that until there is a budget resolution that sets the defense budget level, this bill constitutes an unfunded requirement on the Department. Absent an increase in the topline for Defense, these items will only displace other key elements of our program. It could be counterproductive and completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut our modernization effort and other readiness priorities. For these reasons, it is imperative to proceed within the regular authorization process and after we have agreement on a budget topline. And further on, Secretary Cohen said the following: I appreciate the committee's intent to address the legitimate needs of servicemembers regarding pay and retirement. However, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the opposite effect by raising hopes that cannot be fulfilled until the final budget number is set. Resolving these questions within the normal authorization and budget processes is by far the most desirable approach. Madam President, this is an expensive bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the enhanced pay in benefits provided for in S. 4 will cost almost $12 billion more than the administration proposal over the next 6 years. The increases over the President's budget include added costs of $5.6 billion for the more generous pay raises in the bill, $1.2 billion for the enhanced retirement and Thrift Savings Plan provisions, $100 million for the special subsistence allowance, and $4.9 billion for the new GI bill provisions. For several reasons, it would appear possible that these estimates may be understated. First, the CBO estimate assumes that 50 percent of the enlisted personnel and about 40 percent of officers would elect to receive a $30,000 lump-sum bonus in lieu of a higher annuity in retirement. However, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has raised serious concerns about the $30,000 buyout, and testified that the Chiefs will recommend that the troops opt instead for the more expensive retirement annuity. Second, while the current law governing military pay raises includes a discretionary formula, setting the COLA at .5 percent below the rate of inflation, allowing the President to take into account a broad array of factors, this bill would establish a mandatory COLA at .5 percent above the rate of inflation forever. The CBO estimate addresses the change in the anticipated formula, but because CBO estimates are limited to a narrow budget window, that estimate does not address the added cost to the pay raise that goes on without any time limit whatsoever. And third, and finally, if Congress stands by the historic concept of pay equity and provides annual pay increases for civilian employees of the Federal Government equal to those proposed in this bill for members of the military services, the Department of Defense would face a substantial bill for increased civilian pay as well; and, of course, our overall budget outside of the Department of Defense would also have a substantial bill for increased civilian pay as well. Madam President, little consideration appears to have been given to how we will pay for these increased benefits. At least three 60-vote points of order could be made against this bill under the provisions of the Budget Act--because it would exceed mandatory spending allocations, it would reduce revenues, and it would increase the deficit. That stark fact should demonstrate that we are considering this bill outside the normal legislative cycle. There could be serious consequences to acting on a major spending authorization for fiscal year 2000 and beyond separate from the authorization bill of which it is a part and before we have even considered the budget resolution for fiscal year 2000. Do we intend to revise the budget agreement to pay for this bill? If so, where will the money come from? Will we take it out of surplus? Or will we make some as yet unspecified cuts in the already tight budget for domestic programs to pay for it? At this early point in the legislative cycle, we simply do not know. We can only say that unlike the administration's pay and retirement proposal, which was fully paid for in the President's budget, this bill represents a promise to the troops that may or may not be possible to redeem. If the defense budget is not substantially increased, and if the bill before us is adopted by the House and becomes law, we would need to cut the readiness and modernization accounts to offset the costs of this bill. As the Secretary of Defense has pointed out, such cuts coming at a time when our senior military leadership have already expressed concerns about our readiness could have a serious impact on our national security. For this reason, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that they would support the increased benefits contained in the bill only if the additional money does not come out of other defense programs. Now that is really the key to this. Will these benefits, which we all would like to see put in place, come from other defense programs or will there be a new budget agreement? We do not know. We should know before we act on this bill; but we are not going to know. This bill comes to the floor without knowing the answer to that critical question: whether or not these benefits are going to come out of other defense programs or whether there will be a new budget agreement which lifts the cap for defense. When Secretary Cohen and General Shelton testified before the Armed Services Committee on February 3, the Secretary stated that any further increases to military pay and benefits should be considered in conjunction with the defense authorization bill. And here is what the Secretary said: [W]e do have to propose this as a package, because if we raise expectations unrealistically and we cannot fulfill them we have done a disservice to our troops. Secondly, if we are going to take it out of the readiness accounts and procurement, we have also done a disservice. So the package that we have put together we think makes sense and we hope that any variation will be paid for, period. That is pretty stark and pretty succinct. It comes from our top military leadership that ``we hope that any variation will be paid for, period.'' The increases in this bill above the increases in the President's budget are not paid for in this bill. The Secretary of Defense says, ``we hope that any variation will be paid for, period.'' Now, we are not doing the troops a favor if we say that we are going to increase their benefits but then do not follow through with the appropriation that is necessary to increase their benefits. I do not think there is a member of the Armed Services Committee or a Member of this body who does not believe we should increase the benefits as much as we can to our troops. They deserve it. But we are doing this in a vacuum, separate from the defense authorization bill. And that opens the possibility that we would be passing a bill which says we will give you these extra benefits but then down the line when it comes to an appropriations process or a budget process there is no added funds for defense, and then either these benefits are not funded later on, which would be terrible after we promised them, or we will take the increase out of readiness or modernization or out of housing or some other needed aspect of our defense budget. So I believe that every Member of this body would like to support the improved pay and benefits that would be afforded to our men and women in uniform by this bill. And the question is not whether this additional step is a desirable one--it is--but we should take it only if we can pay for it. And we have to know whether or not we are going to be able to pay for it or else we could be doing damage to morale instead of increasing the needed benefits for our troops. So, for this reason, I may offer an amendment at an appropriate time to express the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this bill are subject to further consideration in the authorization and the appropriation process, after we have agreed on a budget resolution and a determination can then be made whether sufficient funds are available to pay for the bill and a sufficient determination could be made as to what impact those changes will have, if any, on needed readiness and modernization programs in the Department of Defense. I believe that approach would give us an opportunity both to do what this bill does, which is to send an early message to the troops, which the sponsors of the bill have suggested, while at the same time demonstrating some care and some caution by indicating, consistent with the request from the Secretary of Defense, which is now in the Record, that the bill will receive further consideration as part of this year's defense authorization bill, after we have passed a budget and after we know how much money will be available for national defense. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I agree with my good friend from Virginia in terms of the need to both attract and retain people. It is also important that we pay for the benefits in this bill. We are not doing anybody a favor if we say we are going to increase the pay, and then we cut their housing. We are not doing anybody a favor if we say there will be an added pay increase to what the President proposes, and then cut flying hours and steaming hours so that people don't have the training that they want as members of the military. I don't know of anybody who is more keenly aware of the need to both recruit and retain people than our Secretary of Defense. I can't think of anybody other than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Joint Chiefs themselves who are more keenly aware of these shortfalls. That is why we have these increases in the President's budget. But the Secretary of Defense, who is responsible for increasing recruitment and retention, has proposed a budget to us which he believes will do just that. He says in his letter to both the chairman and to me: . . . it is imperative to proceed within the regular authorization process and after we have agreement on a budget topline. The reason he said that is because, ``It could be counterproductive and completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut our modernization effort and other readiness priorities'' to do otherwise. So in terms of the benefits in this bill, I am not one who is criticizing the benefits in this bill at all. I commend these benefits. I just want to pay for them. That is the only issue. Whether we are going to pay for these benefits or we are just going to say in a bill that these benefits are going to be increased, without knowing where the increase is coming from, without knowing whether the budget resolution is going to put more money in for defense, without knowing whether or not these increases in benefits, this pay, and retirement are going to come out of readiness, modernization, housing, or where they will come from in there is not a top line. The benefits, it seems to me, are appropriate. But paying for them is essential, or else we are going to unleash two things. One is false hopes, which will then be dashed, which is, it seems to me, the worst of all worlds--false hopes in our uniformed military people that they will be getting a pay raise larger than the one proposed by the President. Or we are going to be carrying through with the provisions of this bill, and unless there is an increase in the top line, we will be seeing a degradation in readiness or modernization or housing or other important needs, both of the Nation and of our uniformed military personnel. So I am very supportive of the benefits in this bill. What I am pointing out is the missing part of this bill. This is half a bill. This isn't a full bill. This is half of the bill. This is increasing the benefits but it is not saying how we will pay for those benefits. It is half the ledger without the other half of the ledger. That is the problem with this bill. It seems to me what we should do is what the Secretary of Defense has suggested, which is to make these benefits part of the overall authorization bill, which is where they belong and where, traditionally, they have always been lodged and where they have always been considered. We, hopefully, can provide these benefits. I hope and pray we can provide these benefits. They are useful benefits. But we have to pay for them or else we are not doing the responsible and thoughtful thing. We must pay for them as the Secretary of Defense has urged us to do. Otherwise, in his words, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the opposite effect by raising hopes that could not be fulfilled until the final budget number is set. And the ``opposite effect'' that he is referring to is addressing the legitimate needs of service members regarding pay and retirement. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia. Privilege of the Floor Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Gary Leeling of the Armed Services Committee staff be permitted privileges of the floor during debate on S. 4.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, first a personal note to our leaders: How proud I am of them, and we all are of you, for holding us together during this very, very difficult time. We will all be closer for having come through this, regardless of what this vote is or how we individually vote. The burden of proof on the House that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office is a heavy burden, because the effect is so dire in a democracy that depends upon the election of the President. In my judgment, the House of Representatives has not carried that burden of proof as to the specific allegations against the President. The House repeatedly relies on inferences while ignoring direct testimony to the contrary. There is nothing unusual about the reliance on inferences. It happens in trials all the time. What is unusual here is that the House's case relies on inferences from the testimony of people whose direct testimony contradicts the inference. Let me just cite some examples in the obstruction of justice article. First, the House managers in their report, in their brief, made the following statements: ``As evidenced by the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, the President encouraged her to lie.'' That is the words of the House brief. Second, ``The testimony of Monica Lewinsky leads to the conclusion that it was the President who initiated the retrieval of the gifts and the concealment of the evidence.'' Third, ``The President needed the signature of Monica Lewinsky on the false affidavit and that was assured by the efforts to secure her a job.'' Those are all direct quotes. Each one of those relies on inferences. Each one of them is contradicted by the explicit testimony of people from whom those inferences are drawn. Let's just take them one by one. The House managers' inference that the President ``encouraged''--that is their word--Monica Lewinsky to lie was contradicted by Monica Lewinsky's proffer, which was then incorporated into her grand jury testimony, that the President ``never'' encouraged her to lie. That is her word. They say by inference the President encouraged her to lie. She says, ``The President never encouraged me to lie.'' The House managers' inference that it was, ``President Clinton who initiated the retrieval of the gifts and the concealment of the evidence on December the 28th,'' was contradicted by Monica Lewinsky's direct testimony that she initiated the concealment of the gifts. It is uncontested that on December 22 she took some of the gifts and concealed the rest--some of the gifts to her lawyer's office. She decided on her own that she would not turn over the gifts in response to that subpoena because they would embarrass her, or they would, in her words, disclose that there was a special relationship. So on the 22nd she decided on her own to withhold some of the gifts. And yet we are told by the managers by inference that somehow or other it is the President who initiated the withholding and the concealment of the gifts. And then on the 28th, when they met at the White House, it was Monica Lewinsky who said, ``Maybe I should get some of the gifts to Betty.'' She initiated the issue. And then the President said either nothing or, ``Let me think about it.'' And then the question came up: Well, who then made the phone call relative to the pickup of the gifts? Was it Monica Lewinsky calling Betty Currie or was it Betty Currie calling Monica Lewinsky? And here is where another inference is drawn, that if in fact it was Betty Currie who initiated the call, then the inference is that the President told Betty Currie to call Monica Lewinsky. There is a conflict there between Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky. But one of the most intriguing issues in this whole matter, one that I have really given a lot of thought to, is the question: Why would the President give Monica Lewinsky gifts on December 28 if he was concerned about it and wanted to withhold and hide the gifts? It is one of the questions that didn't get a lot of focus up here, by the way. The President gave Monica Lewinsky at least three things that day: That bear carving that Dale Bumpers referred to that came from Vancouver, a small blanket, and a stuffed animal. Now, here is the way the House addressed that issue. They asked themselves in their brief the question: Why would the President give Ms. Lewinsky gifts at the same time he was asking her to conceal others that he had already given her? Answer from the House in their brief: The only logical inference--only logical inference--is that the gifts, including the bear, symbolizing strength, were a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship even in the face of a Federal subpoena. That is the inference that they say is the only logical inference from giving three gifts to Monica Lewinsky, including a bear. Now, there is a real problem with that. First of all, that bear was obtained by the President in Vancouver weeks before there was a witness list. We are not even offered speculation as to how the President could foresee that Monica Lewinsky would be on a witness list and pick up a symbol of strength while in Vancouver so that he could give it to her as a reminder to deny their relationship in the face of some future, unforeseen Federal subpoena. But even more to the point, Monica Lewinsky was asked directly at the grand jury--directly--this question as to whether or not she interpreted the gift of that bear as a signal to her to ``be strong in your decision to conceal the relationship.'' Her direct, one-word answer was ``No.'' And yet the managers come here saying the only logical inference that can be drawn from three gifts being given from the President on the 28th is that the President was signaling to her to be strong in the face of a Federal subpoena. That is the kind of inference we are asked to draw. Now, I was raised on the burden of proof, both as a prosecutor in civil rights cases and as a defense lawyer. The House cannot carry the burden of proof on the critical allegations of criminal misconduct that they have made when they depend on those kinds of inferences, a pile of inferences that run directly contrary to direct testimony on critical points. Impeachment and removal should be based on sturdier foundations than that kind of a heap of inferences. They would have us overlook the forest of direct testimony while getting lost in the trees of their multiple inferences. The December 11 issue has been discussed here. It was extraordinary to me, listening here as both factfinder and judge, that it could be represented to us that on December 11 the first activity calculated to actually help Monica Lewinsky get a job occurred. That is what they alleged on the floor of the Senate. The first activity--these are their words--calculated to help Ms. Lewinsky actually get a job took place on December 11, and that something happened on that day to trigger Vernon Jordan's meeting and real activity. Something happened that day. What was it? Judge Wright's order. In their House brief, it is said that that order came in the morning, which was wrong, and in the presentation here in the opening arguments Manager Hutchinson said the following: ``The witness list came in, the judge's order came in. That triggered the President to action. And the President triggered Vernon Jordan into action. That chain reaction here is what moved the job search along.'' Wrong. It disintegrated here. Vernon Jordan's meeting was before the judge's order. And yet that is what we are asked to base the removal of a President on. And then the thinking shifts to another theory. Removal of an elected President from office has got to be made of sturdier stuff than those kinds of inferences. Finally, on the double standard issue--and I think we all must be concerned about that--a former prosecutor who appeared in front of the House said the following. And Senator Sarbanes quoted one line of this, and I want to repeat that, because it is so important, and then add one other thing that they said. ``In conversations with many current and former Federal prosecutors in whose judgment I have great faith, virtually all concur that if the President were not involved, if an ordinary citizen were the subject of the inquiry, no serious consideration would be given to a criminal prosecution arising from alleged misconduct in discovery in the Jones civil case having to do with an alleged coverup of a private sexual affair with another woman or the follow-on testimony before the grand jury. I believe the President should be treated in the criminal justice system in the same way as any other United States citizen. ``If that were the case here,'' these former prosecutors said, ``it is my view that the alleged obstruction of justice and perjury would not be prosecuted by a responsible U.S. attorney.'' I know this is not a criminal case, this is an impeachment trial, but I would think that our standards should be at least as high as would be in a criminal case, and that if this President would not be prosecuted, much less convicted for these specific charges--and these were criminal charges that were very specifically made by the managers against the President--if that prosecution and conviction would not take place in a criminal case, we should be loathe, I believe, and very, very cautious and careful before we remove an elected President from office. I learned about the burden of proof and presumption of innocence as a young boy, long before law school, when my father, who was a lawyer, taught me that American justice is dependent on these principles. As I grew up and became a lawyer myself, I experienced firsthand the significance of these bedrock principles and learned that it applies to all Americans accused of crimes, including the President. These principles of the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence help guide me now as we exercise our constitutional duty to judge the specific accusations of criminal behavior lodged against the President of the United States. The burden of proof on the House of Representatives that the President has committed serious crimes and should be removed from office is a heavy one, because overturning an election in a democracy is a drastic and dire action. The House has not carried that burden of proof as to the specific accusations against the President. The arguments of the House Managers in support of the Articles suffer from fundamental weaknesses. They repeatedly rely on inferences while ignoring direct testimony to the contrary; they omit key materials which contradict their charges; and they contain serious misstatements of key facts. In a matter of such consequence as the removal of an elected President from office, such a case should not lead to conviction. Let me cite some key examples from Article II, the allegation of obstruction of justice. First, the House Managers in their report, brief, and arguments to the Senate repeatedly rely on inferences to prove key points and ignore direct testimony to the contrary. In opening arguments, House Manager Hutchinson made the following claims: As evidenced by the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, [the President] encouraged her to lie. . . . (T)he testimony of Monica Lewinsky . . . leads to the conclusion that it was the President who initiated the retrieval of the gifts and the concealment of the evidence. . . .The President needed the signature of Monica Lewinsky on the false affidavit, and that was assured by the efforts to secure her a job. Mr. Hutchinson's arguments rely on inferences. Relying on inferences is not unique to proving a case. What is unique is that in this case, the House Managers use inferences primarily from bits and pieces of testimony of people who explicitly deny those inferences in their direct testimony. The House Managers' inference that the President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie was contradicted by Monica Lewinsky's direct testimony that the President never ``encouraged'' her to lie. The House Managers' inference that ``it was President Clinton who initiated the retrieval of the gifts and the concealment of the evidence on December 28, 1997,'' was contradicted by Monica Lewinsky's direct testimony that she initiated the concealment of gifts. Not only is it an uncontested fact based on direct testimony that it was Monica Lewinsky who on December 22, 1997, following the receipt of a subpoena for gifts and having decided on her own to withhold gifts which would ``give away any kind of special relationship,'' brought to her attorney only those gifts that were ``innocuous'' and typical of the kind of gifts an intern might receive. It is also an uncontested fact based on direct testimony that it was Monica Lewinsky who, on December 28, 1997, expressed her interest in wanting to hide the gifts when she said to the President that maybe she should transfer the gifts to Betty Currie. Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President either didn't respond to her comment or said he'd think about it. But what makes the Managers' inference even more speculative is the fact that at the December 28th visit, the President gave Ms. Lewinsky even more gifts, including a bear carving from Vancouver, a small blanket and a stuffed animal. Why would the President give Ms. Lewinsky gifts at the same time he is asking her to conceal others he had already given her? I was struck by the House's answer. ``The only logical inference,'' according to the House Managers, ``is that the gifts--including the bear symbolizing strength--were a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship--even in the face of a federal subpoena.'' That inference, called ``the only logical inference,'' is not only the rankest form of speculation, it is also contrary to the direct evidence. The undisputed grand jury testimony was that the bear carving was brought back by the President from Vancouver, a trip which occurred weeks before Monica Lewinsky's name appeared on any witness list. We're not even offered speculation as to how the President could foresee that Monica Lewinsky would be on a witness list, and pick up a symbol of strength while in Vancouver so that he could give it to her as a reminder to deny their relationship in the face of some future, unforseen federal subpoena. But even more to the point, when Ms. Lewinsky was asked the direct question at the grand jury whether she interpreted the gift of the Vancouver bear carving as a signal to her to ``be strong in your decision to continue to conceal the relationship,'' her direct, one-word answer was ``no.'' The Managers' reliance on inferences from testimony of persons whose direct testimony contradicts the inferences was a recurring pattern during this trial. The Managers alleged that the signing of the affidavit and the obtaining of the job for Ms. Lewinsky were linked, based on inference from bits and pieces of testimony of Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan. But Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky explicitly denied any such linkage. Ms. Lewinsky said, ``There was no agreement with the President, Jordan, or anyone else that [I] had to sign the Jones affidavit before getting a job in New York.'' Mr. Jordan told the grand jury in answer to the question whether the job search and affidavit signing were linked, ``unequivocally, indubitably, no.'' Impeachment and removal should be based on sturdier foundations than the heap of inferences that have been placed before us, when those inferences are pieced together from bits of testimony of witnesses whose direct, explicit testimony contradicts the inferences. The House Managers would have us overlook the forest of direct testimony while getting lost in the trees of their multiple inferences. The House Managers' case also omitted directly relevant, contradictory material and misstated key facts. For instance, the House Managers argued in their brief that relative to the job search assistance for Ms. Lewinsky, ``nothing happened in November of 1997.'' But, in fact, our Ambassador to the United Nations, at the request of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House, offered Ms. Lewinsky a U.N. job on November 3rd. The House Managers' report explicitly represented that ``(t)he first activity calculated to help Ms. Lewinsky actually get a job took place on December 11,'' and that ``(s)omething happened that changed the priority assigned to the job search.'' What happened, the Managers argued, was a court order ``on the morning of December 11'' by Judge Wright requiring President Clinton to provide information about prior relationships involving state and federal employees. The Senate was told by the House Managers that ``(s)uddenly, Mr. Jordan and President Clinton were now very interested in helping Ms. Lewinsky find a good job in New York'' and that Vernon Jordan got active on the afternoon of December 11 when he and Ms. Lewinsky met. Manager Hutchinson said in his argument to the Senate: The witness list came in. The judge's order came in. That triggered the President to action. And the President triggered Vernon Jordan into action. That chain reaction here is what moved the job search along. But that key argument disintegrated before our eyes when it turned out that Judge Wright's December 11 order came late in the day, well after the meeting between Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky, and in addition, the meeting had been scheduled many days before. With respect to the perjury article, the House Managers failed to meet their burden as well. The President admitted to the grand jury that he did have ``inappropriate intimate contact'' with Monica Lewinsky when he was alone with her, and the House Managers failed to identify specific statements that would meet the requirements of a perjury charge. The lack of substantive evidence supporting the charges explains why a panel of five highly regarded former Democratic and Republican federal prosecutors, who appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, testified that this case against the President would not have been pursued by a responsible federal prosecutor. Thomas Sullivan, who served for four years as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and whom Chairman Hyde described as having ``extraordinarily high'' qualifications had this to say: . . . (I)n conversations with many current and former Federal prosecutors in whose judgment I have great faith, virtually all concur that if the President were not involved--if an ordinary citizen were the subject of the inquiry--no serious consideration would be given to a criminal prosecution arising from alleged misconduct in discovery in the Jones civil case, having to do with an alleged coverup of a private sexual affair with another woman or the follow-on testimony before the grand jury . . . I believe the President should be treated in the criminal justice system in the same way as any other United States citizen. If that were the case here, it is my view that the alleged obstruction of justice and perjury would not be prosecuted by a responsible United States Attorney. Finally, I have had a deep concern about the impeachment process which formed the basis of this trial. While my decision to reject the articles is based on the inadequate proof of the crimes alleged, the process which brought this matter to trial was deeply flawed. The articles of impeachment before us are based on materials, the so- called Starr Report, compiled by an outside prosecutor, not by the legislative branch itself, which has under the Constitution the ``sole'' responsibility for impeachment. Instead of doing an independent investigation, the House of Representatives unwisely delegated, in my judgment, the critically important investigative function to an outside prosecutorial foe of the President and an actual advocate of his impeachment. The House took that prosecutor's record and his testimony and made them the basis of articles of impeachment presented to us. The contrast to the Watergate investigation and the impeachment of President Nixon is stark. In the Watergate investigation, the Senate convened a select committee in February 1973 to investigate the Watergate break-in and other campaign irregularities in the 1972 election. That committee took testimony for a year. In February 1974, the House voted to direct the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry into impeachment. The Committee conducted its own investigation, including subpoenaing the White House tapes and calling numerous fact witnesses. The Committee also obtained the report of the grand jury meeting under the authority of Leon Jaworski, the Watergate prosecutor. In deciding to allow the grand jury report to be forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Sirica found that the report: `` draws no accusatory conclusions. . . contains no recommendations, advice or statements that infringe on the prerogatives of other branches of government. . . . (and) renders no moral or social judgments. The Report is a simple and straightforward compilation of information gathered by the Grand Jury, and no more. . . .'' (In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972, Grand Jury Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, March 18, 1974.) The report sent to the House of Representatives in the matter before us violated almost every standard followed by Judge Sirica. The Starr Report didn't present the evidence in an impartial manner as contemplated in the independent counsel law. It drew a host of ``accusatory conclusions'' and rendered judgments. The report contained a large volume of needlessly salacious detail and omitted or dismissed important exculpatory evidence. The impeachment process has suffered as a result. Moreover, the House made a significant and irreparable mistake in the actual drafting of the articles. Each article alleges multiple acts of wrongdoing. Thus, it would be impossible to determine after a vote on the articles whether a 2/3rds majority of the Senate actually agreed on a particular allegation. Article I, for example, charges that President Clinton committed one or more of the 4 possible acts of perjury; Article II charges that President Clinton committed one or more of 7 possible acts of obstruction. Without separate votes on each of the alleged acts, it would be impossible to determine whether 2/3rds of the Senate agreed that the President had committed any of the actions alleged. Since the Constitution requires conviction upon a vote of 2/ 3rds of the Senate, the articles as drafted do not allow us to guarantee to the American people that we are complying with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. This is a flaw that cannot be fixed, because the Senate does not have authority to amend the articles. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers asked this question, ``Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal . . . [which] . . . would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused and . . . his accusers ?'' Each of us, however we vote, will soon answer that question, as we stand between the accuser and the accused, weighing the evidence. The issue before us is not whether the President's conduct was reprehensible; that is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. The issue is whether the President committed the alleged crimes for which he should be removed from office, a proposition which places on his accusers a heavy burden of proof. It is a burden the House Managers have not met, and I will, therefore, vote against the articles of impeachment. I would like to add my thoughts on censure as well, since this may be the only appropriate opportunity to do so. I support the censure resolution authored by Senator Feinstein, and I commend her for her openness, diligence and hard work in bringing to fruitition a bipartisan product. The President should know, the American people should know, and history should know that by voting to acquit on impeachment, we did not vote to acquit the President for his egregious conduct. I know of no Senator who is not deeply troubled by the President's conduct. While I do not believe the President's conduct in his private, consensual sexual relationship should have become the business of the American public, it did in fact become so, and when it did the President had the duty to tell the truth. And no matter how wrong or improper that disclosure of the President's private life was, it does not justify the lies the President told to the American people, his family and his staff. I hope that our votes today on impeachment will conclude this unfortunate chapter in our political history and that the President, through a forthright acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of his behavior, will lead the nation toward healing the wounds these events have opened. I believe the American people want an end to this matter more than anything, and that any further criminal investigation of the President with respect to the matters under Mr. Starr's jurisdiction should be immediately concluded. While Senator Feinstein's censure resolution states that President Clinton remains subject to criminal indictment, that is in the resolution as a statement of fact and not as a statement of encouragement. Indictment after this impeachment trial would not be appropriate nor would it be in the public interest. Today's votes should bring this tragic episode to an end.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable person from my home state of Michigan, Judge Laurence E. Howard. On February 26, 1999, Judge Howard will retire after 23 years of service to the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan. Judge Howard's history of public service is truly deserving of recognition. After serving his country in the Army during the Korean War, he received his Juris Doctor degree from Notre Dame in 1961. He then embarked upon a short career in the private sector, and in 1961, he returned to the public arena as Assistant City Attorney of Grand Rapids, Michigan. A couple of years later, he decided to return to private practice, but in 1968, the call of public service encouraged him to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. Though his bid for office was unsuccessful, he remained active in local politics over the next several years. In 1976, he was appointed to the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan. For the last 23 years, Judge Howard has served with integrity and compassion. His departure from the bench will certainly mark a new chapter in his life. I am confident that it will be as successful as his law career. Though he plans to remain active in the Grand Rapids area, he will surely enjoy spending more time with Marilyn, his wife of over forty years, his four children and sixteen grandchildren. I am pleased to join his colleagues, friends and family in offering my thanks for all he has done. Mr. President, Judge Laurence E. Howard can take pride in his long career of honor and dedication to the public. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting Judge Howard's commitment to his community, his country and the law, and in wishing him well in his retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Michigan State University basketball program, which is celebrating 100 years of excellence this year. The MSU fight song begins, ``On the banks of the Red Cedar, Is a school that's known to all, Its specialty is winning, And those Spartans play good ball. . .'' Any basketball fan who has watched the Spartans on the court throughout their history knows just how good they have been. Who could forget the wizardry of Lansing, Michigan's own Earvin Johnson, who performed ``magic'' every time he stepped onto the court? Or the deft shooting touch of Big Ten scoring champion Mike Robinson? Or the dapper sensibility of legendary coach Jud Heathcote, who coached Michigan State to a national championship in 1979? In all, the MSU men's basketball team has won seven Big Ten championships, one national title, and has made ten consecutive post-season tournament appearances. Forty-five Spartans have been drafted by the National Basketball Association, fifteen have been honored as first-team All- Americans, and four have been Big Ten Player of the Year. This year's Spartans basketball team is living up to the standards set by the heroes of the past. They are currently in first place in the Big Ten and are ranked fourth in the nation. Under the leadership of their coach, Iron Mountain, Michigan native Tom Izzo, the Spartans are roaring into the post-season ready for the challenges ``March Madness'' will bring. Like countless basketball fans nationwide, I am looking forward to watching Mateen Cleaves, Morris Peterson and the rest of the team add another national championship to the Michigan State trophy collection. Michigan State's athletes, whether they compete in basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, football, or any of MSU's athletic programs, also deserve recognition for their outstanding achievements in the classroom. More than three hundred of MSU's student athletes had 3.0 cumulative grade point averages as of the fall semester. One hundred seventy-eight were on the Dean's List. And thirty-nine had 4.0 grade point averages. Now, thanks to the unprecedented generosity of a former Spartan basketball player, MSU's student athletes will have access to some of the finest academic support facilities in the country. Steve Smith, Michigan State's all- time leading scorer and current NBA star, recently gave $2.5 million to MSU to build the Clara Bell Smith Student-Athlete Center, named for Steve's late mother. The Center serves the more than 800 students who play varsity sports at Michigan State. Athletes are able to take advantage of tutoring and mentoring programs, computer literacy training and career development sessions. The Clara Bell Smith Student- Athlete Center is truly a powerful symbol of Michigan State's commitment to the academic success of its athletes. Mr. President, Michigan State basketball has brought pride to the students and alumni of that great university, as well as to the people of Michigan. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Michigan State's students, alumni and faculty as it celebrates 100 years of basketball excellence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to one of the most eagerly anticipated holidays each year in my home state of Michigan, Paczki Day. The day before Lent is known in other parts of the country as Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras, but in Metro Detroit and in other Michigan communities we celebrate Paczki Day. Paczkis, which are similar to jelly-filled doughnuts, were introduced to Metro Detroit by new immigrants from Poland who settled in the city of Hamtramck, Michigan. Today, thanks to the people of Hamtramck, Michigan is the paczki capital of the United States, with several million dozen paczkis sold every year. The Detroit Free Press reported that in 1993, paczki sales totaled $7 to $8 million, which, as the Free Press reported, was ``. . .not bad for a one-day holiday with a three-day selling period.'' Paczki Day is a little like St. Patrick's Day. It is said that on St. Patrick's Day, everyone is a little bit Irish no matter what their family's background actually is. Well, on Paczki Day in Hamtramck and throughout Metro Detroit, we are all a little bit Polish. I look forward to celebrating my own ``Polish heritage'' with the people of Hamtramck on Paczki Day this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend Senator McCain in submitting this resolution designating May 1999 as ``National Military Appreciation Month.'' Senator McCain is one of the great champions in the Senate of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. It is a privilege to join him in sponsoring this resolution. Day after day, our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines continue to demonstrate a high degree of excellence and commitment. No matter what we ask of them, they always respond in the most professional manner imaginable. We have asked them to serve in combat operations, in peacekeeping missions, and in humanitarian relief efforts. We have deployed them around the world to stand in the face of aggression. They make tremendous personal sacrifices to serve their nation. The most recent example of the excellence and professionalism of our forces was Operation Desert Fox. Over 40,000 troops deployed from bases around the world in response to Sadam Hussain's flagrant defiance of UN authorized inspections. Without a single U.S. or British casualty, our troops flew more than 600 aircraft sorties, 300 of them a night. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines all participated in this flawless operation. This same excellence has been demonstrated in Bosnia, Korea, Central America, and every other place where our members serve. Our troops are, quite simply, the best. They are the best trained, best equipped, best disciplined and most highly skilled and motivated military force in the world. They deserve the recognition of a grateful Nation. This resolution calls on all Americans to recognize and honor their dedication and service. It is the least we can do.