[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S5624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE VOID IN MORAL LEADERSHIP--PART X

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, attorneys for the President 
of the United States filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to delay 
the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. Ms. 
Jones is a former Arkansas State employee.
  The President's strategy is to try to delay the lawsuit until after 
he leaves office. among the reasons he cites for the need for delay is 
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. This law lets 
those who serve in the military postpone civil litigation until the 
subject's completion of active duty military service.
  Columnist Maureen Dowd writes about this issue in this morning's, New 
York Times. She says it is a move ``that marks a new level of chutzpah 
in American politics.'' She says, ``As a society, we haven't preserved 
our sense of shame. But Bill Clinton is doing his best to preserve our 
sense of shamelessness.''
  Why is this? Ms. Dowd goes on to explain: ``* * * Mr. Bennett (the 
President's attorney in the case) is getting paid too much to make the 
hideous mistake of reminding the public of one of Mr. Clinton's 
improvidences (his maneuvering on the draft) in defense of another (his 
wandering eye).'' That is a quote from Maureen Dowd's column in today's 
issue of The New York Times.
  In a ``Dear Colleague'' letter dated May 21, Bob Stump, the chairman 
of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, also addressed this issue 
of the President allegedly serving in the armed forces. Mr. Stump, I 
might remind my colleagues, was once a member of the President's own 
party. Here is what Mr. Stump says, speaking about the President's use 
of the 1940 act:
       This ignoble pleading is a slap in the face to the millions 
     of men and women who either are serving on active duty, or 
     have served on active duty in the armed forces of the United 
     States. In 1969, President Clinton ran away from his military 
     obligation, dodging the draft, claiming that he `loathed the 
     military.' Now, President Clinton by claiming possible 
     protection under The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, 
     makes a mockery of the laws meant to protect the honorable 
     men and women who serve their country in the armed forces of 
     the United States.
  Mr. President, I have given a series of statements on this floor 
regarding the President's absence of moral leadership for this country. 
I have been very specific about when he has failed to set a good 
example for those he serves and leads. I have been specific about how 
he says one thing and does another.
  I think moral leadership, from my definition, is doing what you say 
you are going to do.
  This is yet another example--this use of the Soldiers' and Sailors' 
Civil Relief Act of 1940--where the President of the United States, 
albeit a citizen, is indeed the Commander in Chief, but he probably is 
not doing what the intent of the law is. The Constitution empowers him, 
of course, to be their leader.
  With that power, he has responsibilities. Responsibilities to set the 
best possible example for those in the military.
  The U.S. Navy has recently undergone enormous public criticism. One 
of the most damning incidents was sexual harassment associated with 
Tailhook. Congress and the public have put great pressure on the Navy 
to assign responsibility and accountability for that outrageous 
behavior. Admirals and captains could not hide behind loopholes, helped 
by clever lawyers, to avoid accountability. They had to face trial, and 
take responsibility for their actions.
  In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the President would like to avoid 
taking that responsibility. What kind of message does that send to the 
men and women he leads as Commander in Chief?
  Is not the mark of a true leader one who would do the same that he 
asks of those he leads? How can a leader have one standard for himself 
and another for everyone under him--a double standard? Is this setting 
a good example? Is this leadership? And what kind of military would we 
have if our officers chose to follow their leader, in this case the 
Commander in Chief, and avoid responsibility in the same way? Well, of 
course, you know the answer. The integrity of the military would be 
severely compromised.

  Mr. President, this is a good illustration of why moral leadership in 
a President is so important, just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
observed. I have quoted him so many times on this floor in this series 
of speeches that I am not going to quote him again, but FDR laid out 
very clearly that if there is anyplace you are going to question a 
President, it is his moral leadership. In this President, there is a 
fundamental lack of moral leadership.
  It has a corroding effect on the public's trust in their Government 
and authorities. It breeds cynicism. That is my great fear, and that is 
why I have reluctantly taken the floor recently with my observations 
about the President not doing what he said he would do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________