Ladies and Gentleman, children of not all ages, we present to you a perfect example of a politically influenced and partisanly beneficial enforcement of the Senate's ethics laws. You will note the blatantly uneven application of ethics enforcement in the case of ex-Senator Robert Packwood and President Bill Clinton. This example of garishly transparent "women's rights advocacy" is falsely sanctimonious and clearly shows that Ms. Mikulski's function as " a voice that women's concerns would not be minimized, trivialized, or disregarded" is only applicable when it is politically useful to be so. Let us begin our critique with this transcript taken from the Senate's ethics committee as given by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) Maryland concerning Senator Robert Packwood. Our comments will be in bold print and interposed with the actual transcript.

(Senate - September 07, 1995)

Ms. MIKULSKI: Mr. President, yesterday, I voted to support the Ethics Committee's resolution recommending that Senator Packwood be expelled from the U.S. Senate. Expulsion meets the criteria I set forth for myself in evaluating this case when I was appointed to the Ethics Committee almost 3 years ago. That criteria is straightforward.

First, that the victims' complaints be taken serious and given value. Let's look at this statement folks, this is not the same standard we find applied in the charges that Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley brought against President Clinton. That the women who came forward be given a fair shake, and, that they be treated with respect and with dignity. What do you think here, my impartial friends, where is the vaunted bi-partisanship when a member of her political party is charged with the same? Seems your partisanship is showing MS. Mikulski. And, second, that we clearly demonstrate that the Senate could demonstrate that it could police its own. And that the Ethics Committee would process this with honor and bring honor to the U.S. Senate.

I believe the committee resolution meets these criteria. The committee of which I am a member carefully reviewed the evidence and found substantial credible evidence that Senator Packwood 's conduct was an abuse of his position, an abuse of power and that he brought dishonor upon the U.S. Senate. What about the grievous dishonor Mr. Clinton brought against the White house with his wanton sexual gratification and the laughing stock he has made of the executive branch to the world? The phrase substantial credible evidence is the same term that Ken Starr used in his referral to the House and Senate concerning his findings in the Monica Lewinsky case. The blind partisan eye Ms. Mikulski uses to determine what is "substantial credible evidence" when it applies to her party's president is incredible.

Senator Packwood has shown a flagrant disregard for the victims, the Senate, and for the citizens of Oregon. Substitute the name President Clinton and change the scope of his malfeasance to the whole United States. His conduct is a systematic abuse of women, power, and this institution. Again place Bill Clinton's name here. He has made at least 18 unwanted, unwelcome sexual advances on women. Gee, President Clinton has a damage control office that is paid for with our tax dollars that pre-emptively squelches "bimbo eruptions", therefore, the exact number of women who have experienced his wanton sexual advances may never be known. He intentionally obstructed the committee's inquiry by tampering with his diary. If not for the dress that Monica kept with his DNA on it her word would have gone against his and we know that he is an "exceptionally good liar" as Sen. Bob Kerry has observed. Therefore, he would have lied his way out of that situation as well. He asked lobbyists for jobs for his wife to reduce his alimony payments. Bill Clinton had Vernon Jordan get Monica Lewinsky a job to "motivate" her to sign a false affidavit. His offenses taken cumulatively, and even individually, are unacceptable.

By any standard, (exept the partisan one I operate under) in any workplace in the United States of America (exept for when a Democrat is in the White house), he would have been fired for this. Bill Clinton would have been rejected like a bad meal from the presidency if he lived under the same law as the rest of the United States). He is Commander in Chief and yet the military he commands has a code of conduct that if brought to bear against him, would remove him from office. I voted to fire Senator Packwood from the U.S. Senate. However, I voted to keep Bill Clinton as President of the United States because I don't care about the substantial credible evidence found against him in his abuse of office, manipulation of witnesses, and obstruction of justice. I only care about retaining political power and that, to the exception of the enforcement of the law. For me the past 34 months have been extraordinary. When then Majority Leader George Mitchell asked me to serve on the Ethics Committee, I knew that I would be the only woman on the Ethics Committee. I was willing to assume that role. I knew it was a special responsibility and a special duty. I knew I had a duty to the Senate. I knew I had a duty to the victims and I knew I had a duty to the women of America. Where is the "special" obligation you are committed to Ms. Mikulski when Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley where sexually violated and their rights trashed by the Democrat Bill Clinton? You only care about "certain women's rights" and if these women's rights don't work to bring down conservatives and are not politically advantageous for you and your party, you will oppose them at all costs, even to the point of circumventing the rule of law.

I wanted to be sure that I was a voice for women. Actions speak louder than words, Ms. Mikulski. Not only for the victims whose voices I wanted to be heard, I also wanted to be a voice for women in how they are treated in a workplace. I wanted to be a voice for women who are victims in situations of sexual assault where often they themselves are doubly victimized. First, by the assailant and then by the very process of prosecution. Sure you do.

I also wanted to be sure that I was a voice that women's concerns would not be minimized, trivialized, or disregarded. Again, exept for the one's that aren't politically useful. I believe that I worked to fulfill that responsibility. I articulated this throughout the ethics process on the Packwood matter.

I articulated this to the men of the committee and those men have stepped up and honored that responsibility. I want to thank the men of the Ethics Committee for the role that they played in giving value, worth, and voice and a fair shake to the women who came forward on this the very first case in the U.S. Senate involving victims. Like Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley aren't victims of this abusive President?

I also want to thank the women of Oregon for their patience. For it is those women who stood by the Ethics Committee in these 34 months and placed their trust in the institutional processes of the U.S. Senate. I bet that they can see how misplaced that trust is now. I think when our vote was taken yesterday that the Senate showed that we could police our own. Ms. Mikulski, If Sen. Packwood was a Democrat, this police action would had been diluted and disregarded. So, now the work of the Ethics Committee has been completed.

This is a sad day for the Senate, but I am glad that Senator Packwood has written his own final chapter and ended his Senate career with dignity. When partisan double standards determine right from wrong Sen. Mikulski, dignity becomes disgrace.

This comparison shows that "women's issues" and "sexual harassment problems" are a tool that the liberals use to force conservatives from power. Don't think for a moment that Sen. Mikulski cares one bit for true justice in these cases. If she did she would have done all to remove Bill Clinton from power. Her concern is how to use such abuses for political ends. We hope your eyes are open to this and will look at her and other hypocrites with this in mind. If you want to waste your time and bring this to her attention, I am sure she would be glad to send you a form letter first thing in the morning. Don't you have faith in our representative government.