Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, my second comment has to do with our Chaplain. I listened with great interest and humility to the prayer he offered this morning. I felt touched by the things he asked on our behalf. They were the kinds of things I need from our Heavenly Father. I was grateful to the Chaplain for his ability to touch on those. I read his biography before it was published. He was gracious enough to give a copy of it to my wife, who has now read it, and I have reread it. We are well served by having a man of his spirituality and intellectual background and learning as our Chaplain in the Senate.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, before I begin my statement with respect to tax day, I wish to pause and express on behalf of the people of Utah our great sympathy for and anguish over the tragedy that has occurred in the State of Virginia. I was once a resident of the State of Virginia, and I now am a physical resident of the State of Virginia while remaining a legal resident of Utah, and I feel close to the people of Virginia. Virginia is known for its system of colleges spread throughout the State, in magnificent rural settings. Blacksburg, VA, is one of those settings, and Virginia Tech is one of those colleges. It comes as an enormous shock, and a sense of horror, to discover that a single student can be sufficiently disturbed in this quiet kind of setting to vent all of his demons in such a manner. I want the people of Virginia and the students and parents of Virginia Tech to know they are not alone in their horror and their grief and to share that on behalf of the people of Utah whom I represent.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today is tax day, the day when most of us file for an extension so we can have another 3 months or so to work through the problems connected with our taxes. I wish to review the history of our tax system and the groundwork for an attempt to try to solve some of its serious problems. One of the reasons we file for an extension is because the Tax Code itself is impenetrable. There are few--or I would say if any--who understand it. I remember when I was a very junior Senator here on the floor talking about health care, when President Clinton's administration was pursuing that, and making the point on the floor that the law was absolutely beyond comprehension. I quoted James Madison, who said that the laws should be understandable, and that was part of his justification for the writing of the Constitution. Senator Moynihan, the Senator from New York, corrected me; that is, he disagreed with me. He stood up and said: Senator, we have long since passed the point where the laws are understandable. Look at the Tax Code; there is not a soul on the Earth who understands that, so do not make the fact that the health care bill is incomprehensible a justification for defeating it. I do not know how serious he was. Senator Moynihan was known for his sense of humor, but he was also known for his ability to go to the heart of the issue. Let me review the history of where we got our tax systems--and yes, the last word is plural because we have basically two Federal tax systems in this country. We have the payroll tax, and we have the income tax. Both were adopted during the period of the Great Depression. Stop and think about the conditions which existed at that time. We were in the worst economic contraction of our history. The American unemployment rate was running not only in double digits but as high as 25 percent. Of the 75 percent who still had jobs, many of them had jobs that were not adequate to their needs. It was a devastating psychological time. The historians who talk of it say that many of those who were unemployed would get up in the morning, put on their suit and tie, put on their hat, and leave the house as if they were going to work because they did not want the neighbors to know they were unemployed. The stigma of unemployment was psychologically almost as devastating as the financial stigma of being unable to meet one's bills and pay one's mortgage. The second circumstance that was present at the time of the Great Depression was that we were in the center of the industrial age. All of us, as we went to school, remember being taught about the industrial revolution when we shifted from basically an agricultural economy to predominately an industrial economy, an economy of factories, an economy of mass--mass building, mass production, mass communications. Everything was industrialized. The third situation that applied in those days was that our economy was basically protected by two oceans. We were insulated from the rest of the world in a very real, physical, geographical sense. Stop and think about these three interacting with each other--serious economic contraction in the midst of the industrial age at a time when we were self-contained between two oceans. Ask yourself whether those three conditions exist today. We are in the midst of the longest running expansion in our history, not contraction. We are in the midst of this information age, not the industrial age. The focus of America, just as it shifted from agriculture to industry, has now shifted to the information age, and the richest man in America is not the one who owns the most land, as was true in the agricultural age, or the one who owns the biggest factory, as was true in the industrial age, but the one who has mastered the capacity of the digital code, which is true in the information age. Finally, we are clearly not confined to a land between two oceans. Money moves around the world, ideas move around the world, and concepts move around the world with the click of a mouse. We do not have anything like the economic circumstances that prevailed when we adopted our present tax system. Yet we continue to perpetuate those tax systems as if they still apply to our situation. The payroll tax penalizes the working poor. It is an effective tax rate of 15 percent on the waitress who works at minimum wage because 7\1/2\ percent she has to pay and 7\1/2\ percent her employer pays that otherwise she would get in her paycheck. That is a very high, regressive tax. When it started out in the midst of the Great Depression, it was 1 percent or 2 percent, and now it has grown to a 15-percent effective rate. While the payroll tax penalizes the working poor, the income tax discourages the productive rich. The more you produce, the more the Government comes in and says: We will take that away from you. I have said before in this Chamber, I was fortunate enough to be involved in building a business during what many newspapers called the decade of greed. Ronald Reagan was President, and the top tax rate was 28 percent. We had basically a flat tax system. It had two tiers, 15 percent and 28 percent, but it was moving us toward a simple system, a flat rate system. If I were running that same business today, the effective rate would be 43 percent, and the difference between 28 percent and 43 percent on the earnings of that company would probably make the difference between the company surviving or not. It started out not in a garage but in a basement. It grew to 4,000 employees. Think of the tax revenue coming from those employees, think of the tax revenue coming from that successful business. Then ask yourself: Would it have been a good thing to have prevented that business from coming on board in the name of high tax rates? We need the tax revenue. We perhaps need more tax revenue than we are currently getting. I will grant that to my friends on the Democratic side. But I suggest to them a bargain. If we want to drive to a higher level of tax revenue, let's recognize we live in a very different world than we lived in in the 1930s, when we created our present tax system. Let's talk about eliminating the payroll tax. Senator Moynihan was willing to do that. Let's talk about eliminating the present system of income tax and replacing it with a flat tax. Instead of saying we want to use the tax system to make economic decisions, using the tax system as the tiller to steer the economy, let's adopt the radical notion that the purpose of taxes is to raise money to run the Government, and then ask ourselves, how can we raise it in as simple a manner as possible, as efficient a manner as possible, as competitive a manner as possible, so that we recognize the reality in which we live--a tax system that is geared to an expanding economy rather than shrinking one, a tax system that is geared to the information age rather than the industrial age, and a tax system that is geared to a worldwide economy rather than one centered within our borders. I am already having conversations with some of my Democratic friends on this issue. I think tax day is the day to talk about it. We disagree as to whether the President's tax cuts should be extended. I voted for them. I think they probably should be. But I am willing to scrap the whole thing, if my friends across the aisle will make a deal with us whereby we say: Let's start with a clean sheet of paper and produce a tax system that is geared to the realities of the economic circumstances we face. I hope in this Congress we can move in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, during the week we were back in our home States getting acquainted with our constituents, there was more good news on the economy. I had expected to spend my 10 minutes here talking about the economy. I will do that briefly, but I intend to move to another issue which came out during the week of recess which I think deserves comment. The news came out about the number of new jobs created in the month of March and a revision upward of the number of new jobs created in February. Without going through the details, I will summarize what this news really means with respect to the recovery as a whole. Ever since the economy started its recovery after the recession that began in mid-2000, we have created, now, more than 150,000 new jobs every month; every month, 150,000 new jobs over a period of more than 40 months. That sounds impressive, but let's go behind the figures and look at what is really happening in the economy to understand how impressive it should be. Oversimplifying but taking a number that describes what is happening, every month approximately 900,000 Americans lose their jobs. Their company goes out of business, the company cuts back, things change, they retire and the job is not replaced--whatever it may be, every month roughly 900,000 jobs disappear. In order for us to be able to say accurately that we have created more than 150,000 new jobs every month, that means the number of new jobs created every month is not 150,000, it is 1,050,000, to produce a net of 150,000. To produce 1,050,000 new jobs every month for over 41 months--which is the record of this economy and this recovery--is pretty extraordinary. Frankly, it is unusual. We take it for granted in America because it happens in our dynamic economy almost automatically. If you go to other economies in the world, you find that this does not happen. Unemployment is high, is stagnant, is continual. I was in Europe a month or so ago, and picking up an international paper, it said: The German economy is coming back. Unemployment is now down. And then there was another headline that said: The American economy is fairly stagnant; unemployment is stable. We found, during the break, unemployment hit 4.4 percent. It is as low as it was at the end of the last economic boom. The Germans were excited that their unemployment record was now out of double digits, getting down into the 9, maybe even 8 percent level. That is exciting for them. The American economy is doing well and does not get the credit it deserves. Perhaps it is the political atmosphere in which we operate, but we keep hearing this described as the Rodney Dangerfield recovery. It is strong. It is powerful. It is creating new jobs. But if you listen to some, it is in a state of constant disaster. The figures that came out during the break made it clear: The economy is not in a state of constant disaster; the economy is still strong. However, there was something else that came out during the break which I think deserves some comment. I turn for my text in this matter to a source that is not usually thought of as being particularly friendly to Republicans. I am talking about the Washington Post editorial page. I was a little stunned, out in Utah dealing with my constituents and getting reacquainted with some real people who have different kinds of priorities than those we normally have here in Washington, to read about Speaker Pelosi's venture into the Middle East. I picked up, via the Internet, an e-mail, a copy of the editorial that ran in the Washington Post. I think it deserves some review. It is entitled: ``Pratfall in Damascus,'' and the subhead is: ``Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy.'' The opening paragraph begins this way: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why Members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the Secretary of State when traveling abroad. I have traveled abroad, Madam President, as have you. I went abroad when Bill Clinton was the President of the United States, and I traveled with Phil Gramm of Texas. I do not think anybody has ever accused Phil Gramm of Texas of being particularly fond of Bill Clinton. Every country we went to where Senator Gramm was leading the delegation, the first place we went was to the Embassy. Senator Gramm said over and over again to these ambassadors, every one of whom had been appointed by President Clinton: We are here to help you, Mr. Ambassador, or Madam Ambassador. Tell us what we can do in this country where you are representing the United States that can be of value to you. How can a congressional delegation of varying sizes--usually fairly large--be supportive of the work you are doing in this country? Then when we met with leaders of the country, whether it would be the chief of government or the chief of state, sometimes both, or lower level officials, we always had in mind what we could say and do to support the Clinton State Department's position as represented by the Clinton Ambassador. I have traveled with the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid. We have gone to various places in Europe and in South America. In every instance, Senator Reid went out of his way to make contact with the U.S. Ambassador appointed by President Bush, and to make sure our delegation was properly briefed by that ambassador to make sure we did not do something stupid out of our ignorance while we were in that particular country. I contrast that behavior by Republicans traveling abroad, behavior by Democrats traveling abroad, with the kind of behavior we saw from Speaker Pelosi. I go back to the Washington Post editorial. I must read in its entirety the final paragraph, because it lays it out far better than I can. The paragraph refers to a statement by Nancy Pelosi: We came in friendship, hope and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace. Then the editorial says, and I quote: Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of the former Lebanese prime minister. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic Congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of the sitting Republican President. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander-in-chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the President. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy, but Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow Presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. That happened while we were on break. There are some who hope it disappears in memory, and in the words of George Orwell, that it goes down the memory hole and never gets called up again. I was going to talk entirely about the economy, but I think this is something, now that we are back in session, that we should take time to talk about. I hope with this kind of scolding from the Washington Post--I understand there were other newspapers also that took the same position, newspapers that are not favorable to Republicans generally--I would hope the Speaker would realize she has made a rookie mistake and that she will not do it again. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are debating S. 4, dealing with the TSA employees, the Transportation Security Agency. The most controversial aspect of that has to do with the unionization of those employees. We have had this debate before. We had it when the Department of Homeland Security was created. It was a very vigorous debate. Quite frankly, it held up the bill for a considerable period of time. Ultimately, the Senate and the House decided, with the concurrence of the President, that it would not be a good idea to have these workers unionized. But they are Federal workers and they should have the same rights as every other Federal worker was the argument in favor of unionization. The argument against has to do with the peculiar nature of their assignment. They are not Federal workers in the same sense that people working in the Federal Highway Administration, building highways, might be Federal workers. They are not Federal workers in the same sense that people dealing with normal routines are Federal workers. They appear to be, as we see them day to day--as all of us go through the security procedures at airports and we take off our shoes and our belts and we forget our boarding pass because it is in the bin with the computer and they have to help us recover it and so on--we all have the sense that these are fairly routine operations they are going through. Therefore, why not allow them to form a union and engage in collective bargaining, because this is, in fact, fairly routine work--very important work, to be sure, but fairly routine. In fact, it is not fairly routine, as we have seen during the time this force has been in place. Let me take my colleagues back to the situation before the TSA was created. Screening was done airport by airport, contractor by contractor, because it was viewed as a routine kind of thing. Like all Senators, I travel in and out of enough airports to know that each airport is different. In the days before TSA, one never quite knew what they were going to get. You would go through one airport very rapidly, you would go to another and they would be sticklers for detail. These people were contracted by the airlines, and they had a wide range of skills and a wide range of training. One of the reasons we decided after 9/11 we would have a single Federal force to deal with this was we wanted a single level of training, accountability, and competence to cover the entire American system anywhere in the country. I have found that is now basically true. If I go through the airport in Philadelphia, I get treated pretty much the same way as if I go through the airport in Salt Lake City. This, however, has a security component that is over and above the screening component. We are in a war with an enemy unlike any we have ever had before, and the primary tool in protecting us in this war is intelligence. This is an intelligence war rather than a war between tanks and aircraft carriers and infantry battalions. So when the intelligence turns up a key piece of information in this war, the TSA must be flexible and responsive to its leadership. If we had a series of organized unions, one different in each of the 450 airports that operate in the United States, we would not have the flexibility nor the capacity to respond that we currently have in this situation. Let me give you a few case studies to illustrate what I mean. The most dramatic, of course, was that which occurred when the British intelligence operations discovered there was a plot to blow airplanes up over the Atlantic through the device of taking innocent-looking liquids onboard the airplane and then combining them to create an explosive bomb on the airplane. I remember a study being done at the University of Utah after this was over, by some of the professors there who looked at it and said: It is possible, it can be done, and it can be done fairly simply. They outlined how it would be done--something that, frankly, had not occurred to anybody as they were setting up TSA in the first place. The terrorists in Great Britain were inventive enough to come up with the idea. As we contemplate the possibility of it being carried out, it is truly diabolical. They would have gotten on the airplane, passing all screening, gotten together back in the coach cabin--they would not have had to storm the cockpit or try to take over the airplane the way the terrorists on 9/11 did--mixed their chemicals together and had the airplane blow up over the Atlantic. That means there would be no black box to recover. The entire wreckage of the airplane would be at the bottom of the Atlantic, far beyond any discovery, and the airplane would simply have disappeared off the radar scope, with no explanation, no commentary in the cockpit. The pilot would be reporting, if anybody was listening, that everything was fine, everything was normal and, suddenly, the airplane would have disappeared. The terrorists were scheduled to blowup not one plane, but three or four. Can we imagine what kind of uncertainty that would have created in the air traffic system worldwide if that plot had succeeded? Fortunately, the British intelligence agencies discovered it, interrupted it, and prevented it. In the process, naturally, they notified the American intelligence agencies. What did those agencies do? They went to TSA. They went to the TSA leadership and explained what had happened. The TSA leadership had a security clearance to get all the information about the intelligence involved, and TSA swung into action immediately. Let me give you some of the details. At 4 o'clock in the morning, transportation security officers arriving at the east coast airports, where the first flights would take off, were informed there were new procedures. They were instructed in the procedures. They were trained very quickly. Immediately, seamlessly, through the entire TSA system, everyone was brought up to speed. The difference between what happened in Great Britain and what happened in America is fairly dramatic. Let me read a commentary that describes that: ``Passengers in the United States and the United Kingdom saw two completely different effects of the changes. In the UK, dozens of flights were canceled, scores delayed, and a nightmare of travel backups ensued and lasted for days. By contrast, no cancellations occurred in the United States as a result of this change.'' None. That is because TSA was nimble; TSA could act quickly. There was no concern about revealing the intelligence source of this information to the leaders of TSA because they were all Government employees, and they were all responsive to the Secretary of Homeland Security. If collective bargaining had been in place and a requirement for union approval of change of routines, a clearance by shop stewards of change of patterns, to make sure it fit in with the collective bargaining requirement--a different series of requirements at different airports, as the union would organize Philadelphia but not Baltimore, as the union would organize Kennedy but not LaGuardia, as the union would organize Miami but not New Orleans or wherever you might want to go--the patchwork that would occur, if passage of S. 4 goes forward in its present form, would create all kinds of chaos in the United States. Fear of disclosing the British information might have caused U.S. officials to say: Let's think twice before we describe what is going on and why we are doing what we are doing because it might reveal sources and methods to people who are not cleared for that and inadvertently they could leak it back to al-Qaida. None of those fears occurred. None of those problems arose because TSA was structured from the very beginning to be the kind of agency it is. Another example of what could happen if we allow S. 4 to go forward in its present form occurred in Canada. Quoting from a description of that: Consider a recent incident in Canada, a nation whose air security system does not have the flexibility like that granted to the TSA. Last Thanksgiving, as part of a labor dispute, ``passenger luggage was not properly screened--and sometimes not screened at all'' as airport screeners engaged in a work-to-rule campaign, creating long lines at Toronto's Pearson International Airport. OK, that is the kind of thing we expect. Unions organize for the ability to do slowdowns or strikes or whatever as pressure on management to get what they want. That is what happened. What was the consequence with respect to security? A government report found that to clear the lines, about 250,000 passengers were rushed through with minimal or no screening whatsoever. One Canadian security expert was quoted as saying that ``if terrorists had known that in those three days that their baggage wasn't going to be searched, that would have been bad.'' I think it would have been more than bad. If the terrorists had had any advance indication there would be that kind of breakdown in the screening activities in Canada as a result of union activity, they would have said: All right, that is the time we go to the airport, we go to the airport in some numbers, we carry liquids with us in our baggage, and we put explosives in our checked baggage because it is all going to go through without proper screening. The pressures from the Thanksgiving Day travelers are going to be so high that people are going to say: Well, just let it go through this once. For the terrorists to strike a significant blow at the United States, all we need to do is ``let it go through just this once'' and have them have advance notice of when it would go through. You cannot organize a strike, you cannot organize a work action without people knowing about it. I am not suggesting, in any sense, that anyone in TSA--unionized or not--would ever be complicit in notifying al-Qaida of the fact that a work action was coming. But al- Qaida, in a unionized situation, would say: Here is something we want to monitor. Here is something we want to pay attention to. Some innocent, inadvertent remark on the part of a unionized member of TSA could easily get back to al-Qaida, and they would say: We are ready for this. Let's go. Here is the opportunity. It is going to come up at Thanksgiving. It is going to come up at New Years. It is going to come up at the Super Bowl or some other situation. Unions look for those kinds of situations where they can get maximum leverage for their work actions. It is not hard to figure out where that kind of thing might occur. So if a union is dissatisfied with working conditions at an airport that services the Super Bowl city on Super Bowl Sunday and says: We are going to have a slowdown here unless we get this, that or the other, and the slowdown occurs, it would not take a genius on al-Qaida's part to say: That is where we probe. That is where we do our best to get into the system. Once again, if the plot in Britain had borne fruit and three airplanes had disappeared off the radar screen, with no advance warning and no way to find out what actually happened, worldwide travel would have been disrupted everywhere. The economy not only of our country but many others would have been seriously devastated. The consequences, tragic as they would have been for the families of those on those three airplanes, would have multiplied across the world. I do not want to take that chance. I intend to support the administration's position, which says: If this provision relating to unionization of TSA employees does not come out of the bill, we will oppose the bill. The President has indicated he might very well veto the bill if this provision does not come out. I hope we do not have to go that far. I will oppose this provision. I will oppose the bill if the provision stays in. If it does go that far and gets to the President's desk, I will vote to uphold the President's veto. I think the war on terror has taught us we are dealing with an entirely different kind of enemy, one who is very patient, one who is very intelligent, and one who is very inventive. For us to treat security matters such as airport security as a routine kind of task that can be dealt with in routine kinds of training and, therefore, is eligible for routine kinds of labor relations between management--in this case, our leading security agencies--and labor--in this case, those who are on the frontline of security for our Nation--would be foolish. For that reason, again, Mr. President, I would oppose this bill if this provision does not come out. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I agree with the Senator from Alaska. Funding intended for NDIIPP serves a vital purpose for our Nation. I will work with the Senator and our colleagues to restore these funds. There is a wide assumption that digital materials will be available tomorrow and that we can put off taking measures to preserve them until sometime in the future. That is not the case. The average life of a Web site is 44 days and material not saved today will be gone tomorrow. Geospatial information, including records of land elevation, weather patterns, water levels, LANDSAT imagery, State and local maps and other statistical information about an area exist almost exclusively in digital format today. If these materials are not actively preserved, the vital information they contain will be lost. Outside of efforts being undertaken by government agencies such as the Library of Congress and its public and private sector partners, little is being done to preserve digitally created materials for the future use of the Congress. The expense is great, the technologies necessary for long term preservation of digital information are in their infancy and the risks of loss are not widely known or understood. The legislators of the future will have access to only what we actively preserve today.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007, together with my colleague Senator Hatch. This legislation will ensure the protection of critical lands along the Colorado River corridor in southeastern Utah and will help provide important funding for Utah's school children. In Utah, we treasure our children's education. A key component of our education system is the 3.5 million acres of school trust lands scattered throughout the State. Upon Utah's admission to the Union in 1896, these lands were dedicated to support public education. Revenue from the trust lands, whether from grazing, forestry, surface leasing, or mineral development, is placed in the State School Fund. This fund is a permanent, income-producing endowment created by Congress to fund Utah's public education. Unfortunately, the majority of these lands are surrounded by public lands, making responsible management very difficult. It is critical to both the State of Utah and the Bureau of Land Management that we consolidate their respective lands to ensure that both public agencies are permitted to fulfill their mandates. The legislation we are introducing today is yet another chapter in our State's long history of consolidating these State lands for the financial well-being of our education system. These efforts allow the Federal land management agencies to consolidate public lands in environmentally-sensitive areas that can then be reasonably managed. We see this exchange as a win-win solution for the State of Utah and its school children, as well as the Department of the Interior, the caretaker of our public lands. In 1998, Congress passed the first major Utah school trust land exchange which consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres. Again in 2000, Congress enacted an exchange consolidating another 100,000 acres. I was proud to play a role in those efforts, and the bill we are introducing today is yet another step in the long journey toward fulfilling the promise Congress made to Utah's school children in 1896. Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration manages some of the most spectacular lands in America, located along the Colorado River in southeastern Utah. This legislation will ensure that places like Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River, the world famous Kokopelli and Slickrock biking trails, some of the largest natural rock arches in the United States, wilderness study areas, and viewsheds for Arches National Park will be traded into Federal ownership and for the benefit of future generations. At the same time, the school children of Utah will receive mineral and development lands that are not environmentally-sensitive, and where responsible development makes sense. This will be an equal value exchange, with approximately 40,000 acres exchanged on both sides, giving taxpayers and the school children of Utah a fair deal. Moreover, the legislation establishes a common- sense valuation process for resources that are often either overlooked or overvalued because of their highly-speculative nature. This legislation represents a truly collaborative process that has included local governments, the State, the recreation and environmental communities, and other interested parties. We also worked closely with the Department of the Interior on proper valuation in the appraisal of the lands. In a hearing held before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 24, 2006, the Department of the Interior expressed their support for the bill and said that this land exchange will resolve management issues, improve public access, and facilitate greater resource protection. We look forward to working with the appropriate committees toward a successful resolution of this proposed exchange during this Congress. I ask my colleagues to support our effort to fund the education of our children in Utah and to protect some of this nation's truly great land. I urge support of the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007, together with my colleague Senator Hatch. This legislation will ensure the protection of critical lands along the Colorado River corridor in southeastern Utah and will help provide important funding for Utah's school children. In Utah, we treasure our children's education. A key component of our education system is the 3.5 million acres of school trust lands scattered throughout the State. Upon Utah's admission to the Union in 1896, these lands were dedicated to support public education. Revenue from the trust lands, whether from grazing, forestry, surface leasing, or mineral development, is placed in the State School Fund. This fund is a permanent, income-producing endowment created by Congress to fund Utah's public education. Unfortunately, the majority of these lands are surrounded by public lands, making responsible management very difficult. It is critical to both the State of Utah and the Bureau of Land Management that we consolidate their respective lands to ensure that both public agencies are permitted to fulfill their mandates. The legislation we are introducing today is yet another chapter in our State's long history of consolidating these State lands for the financial well-being of our education system. These efforts allow the Federal land management agencies to consolidate public lands in environmentally-sensitive areas that can then be reasonably managed. We see this exchange as a win-win solution for the State of Utah and its school children, as well as the Department of the Interior, the caretaker of our public lands. In 1998, Congress passed the first major Utah school trust land exchange which consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres. Again in 2000, Congress enacted an exchange consolidating another 100,000 acres. I was proud to play a role in those efforts, and the bill we are introducing today is yet another step in the long journey toward fulfilling the promise Congress made to Utah's school children in 1896. Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration manages some of the most spectacular lands in America, located along the Colorado River in southeastern Utah. This legislation will ensure that places like Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River, the world famous Kokopelli and Slickrock biking trails, some of the largest natural rock arches in the United States, wilderness study areas, and viewsheds for Arches National Park will be traded into Federal ownership and for the benefit of future generations. At the same time, the school children of Utah will receive mineral and development lands that are not environmentally-sensitive, and where responsible development makes sense. This will be an equal value exchange, with approximately 40,000 acres exchanged on both sides, giving taxpayers and the school children of Utah a fair deal. Moreover, the legislation establishes a common- sense valuation process for resources that are often either overlooked or overvalued because of their highly-speculative nature. This legislation represents a truly collaborative process that has included local governments, the State, the recreation and environmental communities, and other interested parties. We also worked closely with the Department of the Interior on proper valuation in the appraisal of the lands. In a hearing held before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 24, 2006, the Department of the Interior expressed their support for the bill and said that this land exchange will resolve management issues, improve public access, and facilitate greater resource protection. We look forward to working with the appropriate committees toward a successful resolution of this proposed exchange during this Congress. I ask my colleagues to support our effort to fund the education of our children in Utah and to protect some of this nation's truly great land. I urge support of the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as we have a debate around here about ethics and congressional perks and all of the rest of those issues, I am interested to find some Members of my own party, at least in the other body, boasting that they do not even have a passport, that they are so focused on their jobs that they don't do any foreign travel at all. When I was a newly elected Senator, the then-Republican leader, Bob Dole, took me and a number of other freshmen up to New Jersey to spend a day with former President Richard Nixon. Whatever you might think of Richard Nixon, I think you might confess he had a grasp of foreign affairs that was perhaps unparalleled. And he will be remembered, along with his other problems, for his opening to China, for his level of detente with Russia, and the other things he did in the foreign affairs field. As we sat with him, one of the first things he said to us was: You cannot do your jobs as Senators if you do not travel. You need to be overseas. You need to be in these other countries. He said: I know the press will criticize you for it, but it is essential that you do it. I have taken his advice. I have discovered he was right. The press does criticize us for it. There were articles in the Washington Post saying: What are these people doing viewing Inca ruins on a holiday at taxpayer expense, as if the whole purpose was some kind of congressional junket. And there would sit some of my friends in the House, smug in their assurance they didn't even have a passport and they were never going to be criticized for doing this. The fact is, Nixon was right--not only for the things we learn when we travel but also for the messages we send when we travel. The majority leader had to go over the holiday period because his schedule was so full with other demands that this was the only time he could get away. I was honored and very much pleased when he asked me to come along. The fact that he made it a bipartisan delegation demonstrates his determination to make these trips have an impact both at home and abroad. It did have an impact on the six of us who were there. We have now come back with an understanding of trade issues in ways that you could not get reading a newspaper or, as one paper said: Why couldn't he find out these facts by getting on the telephone? Well, we went to a flower farm where it was pointed out to us, and we saw specific evidence, that the efforts to raise potatoes in Ecuador or corn or wheat may sound good in a political situation, as some Ecuadorian politicians are saying, but the climate and the altitude say they should be raising flowers. It gave a flavor to the whole question of free trade around the world when we realized the most efficient place to raise corn is in the Great Plains of the United States, and the most efficient place to raise baby's breath or roses is in the high altitudes and sunshine of Ecuador. The fellow who was running the plant said to us: All we are doing is harvesting the sunshine and sending it abroad, and these people have jobs which they would not otherwise have. And this soil and this altitude means raising corn would be crazy. So let the Americans raise corn and ship it to Ecuador, and let the Ecuadorians raise roses and ship them to us. Being there, seeing the plant, seeing the people at work, seeing the conditions they were under is worth 10,000 phone calls to have somebody try to explain it to us. But perhaps more importantly, on the political level, what Senator Conrad was talking about, showing up in three countries that have not seen a significant congressional delegation in anybody's memory was a big deal. The press was everywhere. We were on the front page of the newspapers. We were on all of the television stations. The Ecuadorians gave us each a Panama hat. The Panama hat is misnamed. It has always been produced in Ecuador, but for some reason it got labeled the Panama hat. I wore mine. I was not an important member of the delegation as far as title is concerned, but I got on television because I was wearing a Panama hat. The Ecuadorians took sufficient pride in that I found the cameras following me around, just to say here is a U.S. Senator who is wearing one of our local products. I don't know how much good that did, but it can't have done any harm. Senator Reid handled himself with his usual good taste and aplomb in all of the exchanges and all of the press opportunities he had. No matter how much the Presidents of some of these countries who have an anti-American background might resent the Americans, they could not, in the presence of six American Senators, including the Senate majority leader, not be impressed. They could not not be tempered in their attitudes toward the United States. And some of these Presidents who have the reputation of anti-Americanism in the meetings with others in addition to us were very gracious, and then ultimately in the presence of these Senators, outgoing in their praise of the United States and their delight at having this kind of delegation. Every single Ambassador made it clear to us that by our being there, we made their jobs easier. We made their jobs better. We demonstrated an American interest. I was reminded when I was there on a congressional delegation of a statement I heard from the leader of a European country who opened the conversation by chiding us and saying: It has been too long since a Senator has been here. What is the matter? Aren't we important enough for you to come? Well, if a European country that sees Senators come through about every 6 months had that reaction when it had been over a year since a Senator came, how about a South American country that had never seen a Senator in the lifetime of that particular administration. So, again, we who were on the trip were well served by the things we learned. I have just given one quick example. My colleagues will give others. But just as importantly, the United States was well served in terms of the impact this kind of travel made on those countries that had not seen senatorial delegations. So I intend for the rest of my Senate career to follow Richard Nixon's advice when he said: You cannot do your job if you don't travel. And I would urge those who somehow think they can get a little cheap publicity in the United States by saying: I am above that, I don't accept all of that travel--you are being derelict in your duty. Nixon made one other comment. He said: Yes, I know the press will criticize you, but it makes great speech material when you get home. I hope that has been the case for those of us here today from whom the Senate has heard.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my friend from Wisconsin. I have to repeat what I said on the floor before. I may be the only one--I am not sure--who has had experience with the revolving door, as one who went through it. I worked in the Nixon administration. The day after I walked out, I had a number of clients who wanted me to lobby them at my former department. I was at the Department of Transportation, and I was the chief lobbyist. We pretend that executive departments don't have lobbyists. We call them congressional relations specialists or congressional liaisons, but they are lobbyists. And I had been lobbying the Congress on behalf of the Department of Transportation. In that role I got access to the Secretary's inner circle. And the day after I left, I was hired by people who had interests before the Department. There was no prohibition for that at that time. So I went to the Department of Transportation and to my old friends with whom I had been working very closely for that period of time. I discovered very quickly that the fact that I no longer was at the Secretary's ear, the fact that I no longer had any position of influence in the Department made me a whole lot less welcome in their offices than I had been the week before. They were happy to see me. They were polite. But they had other things to do. And they were happy to get me out of their offices and out of their hair as quickly as they could. Did I have an advantage? Yes, I had the advantage of knowing the Department well enough to know where to go and not waste my time. Did I have any additional clout to get these people to do something that would not have been in the public interest by virtue of the fact that I had been there and worked with them and knew them? Not at all. These were legitimate public servants who were not about to do something improper just because a friend who had worked with them asked them to do it. Of course, I was not about to ask them to do anything improper because that would be a violation of my responsibility to my clients. But I learned quickly that this idea of the revolving door is vastly overrated and overstated by some of our friends in the media. I suppose we will pass the Feingold amendment. I don't suppose it will make any difference. But the idea that a former Member sitting in a board room talking to other people who are engaged in lobbying activity and saying to them: Don't talk to Senator so-and-so, talk to Senator so-and-so because the second Senator so-and-so is the one who really understands this issue. Don't waste your time with the first one. I know him well enough to know that he really won't get your argument--to criminalize that kind of a statement made in a law firm or a lobbying firm, to me, is going much too far. But we will probably pass it. We will go forward. We will see if it survives the scrutiny that it will get in conference and in conversations with the House. I, once again, say that we are doing a lot of things that are in response to the media and in response to special interest groups that call themselves public interest groups but raise money and pay salaries just as thoroughly as the special interest groups. And they have to have something to do to keep their members happy. They have to have something to do to keep those dues coming in, those contributions coming in. So they scare them that a U.S. Senator, who leaves and goes to a law firm, cannot be in the room when anybody in that law firm is talking about exercising their constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances because, if the Senator is in that room for a 2-year period, he is somehow corrupting the entire process. I think that is silly.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BENNETT. How is the time allocated between now and the scheduled votes?

Mr. BENNETT. Do I understand, Mr. President, that the votes are not locked in for 8:10 p.m.?

Mr. BENNETT. So the time between now and 8:10 p.m. is not allocated.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to be fair to whoever opposes my amendment to allow time for them to do that, but I would like to speak briefly in favor of my amendment. My amendment is called the grassroots lobbying amendment. I have discussed it and its virtues at some length previously during the period of debate, but I remind everyone what this is all about. This has to do with the regulations and reporting requirements placed on organizations that stimulate people to contact their Members of Congress. These organizations can be, and many times are, outside of Washington, DC. They can, and many times do, carry on their work without ever contacting a Member of Congress directly or participating in any of the activities we normally think of as lobbying. And yet, if an organization or an individual were to stimulate neighbors, Members of a fraternal organization, their bowling club--whatever it is--to try to get them active in the process of petitioning the Government, they run the risk of not registering properly because under the underlying bill, they are defined as lobbyists, and if they fail to fill out their forms properly, if they fail to register properly, they are subject to a $200,000 fine. The ACLU has said--in my opinion accurately--that this would have a chilling effect on all of these kinds of activities. People on the right side, the National Right to Life, have said this would have a chilling effect on everything we do. I know there has been talk about astroturf lobbyists and astroturf campaigns. I am certainly competent to know when an astroturf phony campaign has been mounted. The letters and the postcards come into the office, and it is very transparent they are not genuine and real. I do not need to be protected from my constituents by the language in the underlying bill. My amendment is very simple. It simply strikes the grassroots provision.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for her kind words. I echo her laudatory comments about the staffs on both sides. This is a baptism of fire for all of us, for my staff and her staff as well, and they have had enough background that they know how to swim. We are very grateful for the cooperation we have received and the support that has come from the staff. I look forward to a productive Congress, working with Senator Feinstein on the Rules Committee on all of the other matters that will come before us. amendment no. 98

Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, may I inquire as to how long this presentation will be?

Mr. BENNETT. I have no objection.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BENNETT. Is the Senator aware of the fact that there are well over 1 million veterans who have moved to Medicare Part D rather than the veterans plan because they find that the restricted formulary in the veterans plan has made it impossible for them to get the drugs they want? And one of the reasons the VA plan is cheaper is because they are rationing drugs? Is the Senator aware of the fact that many veterans have, in fact, moved to Medicare Part D for that reason?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I have no objection if we can add to that that following the presentation of the Senator from Vermont, I will be recognized.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have an amendment, No. 20, which I have offered and which I believe we will be voting on at some point, if not today then tomorrow. I rise to discuss the amendment and to share with my fellow Senators comments that have been made about the amendment by those groups in the Nation that would be most affected by it. My amendment is very simple. It is a single sentence. It strikes section 220 of the underlying bill. So the whole focus of this discussion has to be on section 220 and what is it and what does it do and why do I think it should be stricken. If I can go back to the history of this bill, back to the Senate- passed bill we dealt with in the previous Congress, I can tell you where section 220 came from. It was an attempt to deal with what the press has labeled ``the astroturf groups.'' That is a little bit hard to understand. What does astroturf have to do with anything here? There are grassroots lobbyists and then there are groups the press has decided are phony groups pretending to be grassroots lobbyists. And it is these phony groups that they have labeled ``astroturf lobbyists'' and they think something ought to be done about it. Here is the theoretical definition of an astroturf lobbyist: An astroturf lobbyist is someone who gets paid, presumably by a large organization--a labor union, a corporation, a trade association, whatever it might be--to pretend there is a groundswell of grassroots support or opposition for or to a particular piece of legislation. So this hired gun, if you will, sends out letters, e-mails, faxes-- whatever it is--to stir up phony grassroots support for or against the particular piece of legislation. The idea was that this hired gun, this individual who does this is, in fact, a lobbyist, even though he or she never talks to a Member of Congress, even though he or she may not live in Washington, DC, or even come here, even though he or she has no connection with any Member of Congress or the staff, because he or she is trying to stimulate communications to Congress that have the effect of putting pressure on Congress. He or she is a lobbyist and, therefore, must register, must report who pays him or her, must go through all of the procedures connected with a lobbyist under the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act. Put in that narrow context, there may be some justification for section 220. Now let's step out of that hypothetical context and go to the real world, and we discover that section 220 is pernicious in its effect, which is why it is opposed all across the political spectrum by those who are involved in trying to put pressure on Congress by virtue of communicating with their Members. On the right-hand side of the slate we have the Eagle Forum, on the left-hand side of the slate, if you will, we have the ACLU, and all across the spectrum we have a number of groups that are saying: Wait a minute, the prohibitions on astroturf lobbyists or grassroots lobbyists, as they are called in the bill, are prohibitions that cut to the heart of the constitutional right of Americans to petition the Government for redress of their grievances. I have a letter, a copy of which was sent to every Senator, from the ACLU. Knowing what I know about senatorial offices, I think most Senators will not see the letter, so I will quote from it and at the end of my presentation ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record so that all Senators and their offices can read it. Here is what the ACLU has to say about this particular provision: Section 220, entitled ``Disclosure of Paid Efforts to Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying'' imposes onerous reporting requirements that will chill constitutionally protected activity. Advocacy organizations large and small would now find their communications to the general public about policy matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and report could have severe civil and potentially criminal sanctions. If I can end the quote there and insert this fact: When we adopted the Vitter amendment on January 12, we raised that fine to $200,000. Someone who gets his neighbors together and says, let's all write our Congressmen on this issue, and then spends some money doing it, under this provision becomes a paid lobbyist, and if he does not report and register would be fined $200,000 for having done that. The ACLU does not overstate the case when they say this would have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activity. If I can go back to the ACLU letter and continue quoting: Section 220 would apply to even small, state grassroots organizations with no lobbying presence in Washington. When faced with burdensome registration and reporting requirements, some of these organizations may well decide that silence is the best option. I guarantee you that if this small organization has a lawyer, the lawyer will advise them that silence is the best option. The lawyer will say: You are exposing yourself to a $200,000 fine if you don't do this right, and if you don't have the capacity to go through all of the paperwork and be sure you do this right, the best thing to do is simply not try to stimulate anybody to write his Congressman or go visit the local congressional office. Back to the letter from the ACLU: It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, speech, and assembly enjoys the highest constitutional protection. And for every statement they make here, as you will see when you get the letter inserted in the Record, the ACLU gives Supreme Court decisions in support of the position, and in many instances they are quoting directly from the Supreme Court opinion and not paraphrasing. Back to their letter: Petitioning the government is-- and this is a subquote from the Supreme Court-- core political speech, the ACLU again-- for which the First Amendment protection is--the Supreme Court--``at its zenith.'' So we are talking about something the Supreme Court has ruled is at the zenith of protected political speech under the first amendment. Now, back to another Supreme Court position, quoting again from the ACLU: Constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others for a fee. Further--from the Supreme Court--``the First Amendment protects the right not only to advocate one's cause, but also to select what one believes to be the most effective means of doing so.'' That is from the Supreme Court decision: The right to not only advocate for the cause, but to select what one believes to be the most effective means of doing so. A grassroots lobbying group decides in its neighborhood that the most effective means of influencing and speaking up on legislation is to send out letters to its membership, or perhaps it may decide the most effective means would be to buy a mailing list and send out letters to the people on the mailing list. As soon as they spend the money to buy the mailing list, there is a paid lobbyist involved, and if the registration is not correct, there is a $200,000 fine against that group, if we leave this provision in the bill as it is. The ACLU goes on to make other compelling arguments, but I would like to add a few other comments from other sources to show that this is from across the board. The National Right To Life Committee--not usually associated with the ACLU in most people's minds as being on the same side of an issue--they say: Section 220 defines the act of a constituent contacting a Member of Congress as an act of ``lobbying,'' specifically, ``grassroots lobbying.'' And then here is what section 220 has to say, quoting directly from the bill: Grassroots lobbying means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials, or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same. Let me stress that, again. This legislation says that grassroots lobbying is defined as members of the general public communicating with their Congressman or encouraging others to do the same. I thought that is what we were all supposed to do. I was taught in civics class in high school that everyone had the right to do that, without being forced to register and report all of their connections if somebody pays for it. Again, the Supreme Court says, constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others for a fee. But if you mess up your forms, if you don't file them on time, if somehow they are confusing to you and you have contacted your neighbors or you have purchased a mailing list, whether you are Astroturf or grassroots, you are on the hook for $200,000, as the bill currently stands. Bradley Smith, who is the former chairman of the FEC, along with Stephen Hoersting, who is Republican Senatorial Committee general counsel, two distinguished lawyers, had this to say on this issue: ``Grassroots lobbying'' is merely encouragement of average citizens to contact their representatives about issues of public concern. It is not ``lobbying'' at all, as that phrase is normally used outside the beltway, meaning paid, full-time advocates of special interests meeting in person with Members of Congress away from the public eye. Contact between ordinary citizens and Members of Congress, which is what grassroots lobbying seeks to bring about, is the antithesis of the lobbying at the heart of the Abramoff scandals. It is ordinary citizens expressing themselves. That they are ``stimulated'' to do so by ``grassroots lobbying activities'' is irrelevant. These are still individual citizens motivated to express themselves to Members of Congress. The Right To Life letter goes on to say: Poorly paid, activist employees of such organizations could receive penalties of up to $200,000 per infraction, or even face a threat of criminal prosecution, even if they never set foot in Washington, D.C., or speak to a Member of Congress or congressional staff. Yes, Senator Bennett, that is all very well and good, but what about these Astroturf lobbyists? We have to get to that terrible evil. The people who say that, quite frankly, probably have never, ever served in a congressional office or held public office. And if they have, they were pretty unconscious while that was going on. I first came to this town as a congressional staffer over 40 years ago. I served on the House side; I have served on the Senate side. I have been a lobbyist downtown. Yes, I have been one of these paid professionals, and I reported all of the things I was required to report--went through the whole situation. I was in the executive branch as a lobbyist. We didn't call it that. We pretend the executive branch doesn't lobby the legislative branch, so it is called ``congressional liaison'' or ``congressional relations.'' I was the Director of Congressional Relations at the Department of Transportation. I had exquisite timing. I left just before they had title inflation, and if I had been there a little later, I could say I was an Assistant Secretary. I understand this. People who have been involved in this understand this. When somebody tries to create a truly phony outburst of public opinion, the people in the front office of a congressional staff recognize it in about 3 nanoseconds. The letters come in. They are all identical. You know they are not stimulated by the position of the people at home. You know they were written by some professional who is taking a fee as an Astroturf lobbyist, if you will. You can see through it in an instant. They all come in, almost always in one of these simulated kinds of campaigns and somebody ruins it. I have seen these postcards, and on one of them is written: Senator, my organization told me to send you this. I hope it is helpful. And you know the person who wrote that doesn't know what is on it. Sometimes they come in and they say: I don't know anything about this issue, but I am being asked to send you this postcard. I trust your judgment, Senator, and I hope you do the right thing. There were times when these phony Astroturf kinds of campaigns were so overwhelming in volume that in the office where I was working, we didn't read any of it. You identified it immediately, you put them in a separate mail sack, and you threw them away. I tell people when they come to me and say, What is the best way to influence a Member of Congress, it is to stay away from these people because we are smart enough to see through it. In order to protect the Congress from these kinds of Astroturf campaigns, do we have to put a potential $200,000 fine on someone who uses his church list to send out a letter and urge people who receive the letter to write their Congressman on a particular issue? Do we have to expose every group, right and left, that does its best to stimulate some kind of interest in an issue to this sort of penalty? What about the Internet? What happens if someone goes on the Internet and urges everybody who sees his blog to write Congress and then makes the mistake of hiring somebody and paying him to write that notice on the blog? Has that not created a lobbyist for hire? Somebody finds out the man who created the message on the blog got paid and files a complaint. I don't know what the lawyers would do with it, whether he would end up paying the $200,000, but I do know what he would run up in legal fees to protect himself against that kind of situation. This is simply something that has been created by virtue of a perception of the way grassroots works, a perception that is wrong. This should be stricken from the bill. This should not go forward. I speak not from my own experience, not from how I feel after 40 years of contact with this place in one way or another, but I speak for a vast number of groups who are involved in this on the far right, on the far left, on every stage of the political spectrum in between, including those who are strongly for this bill and including those who say we need more transparency, we need to do something about earmarks, we need to do something about the more traditional definition of lobbyists having undue access. People who say we are for the bill, we are for all of these wonderful things, but if you do this, put this in the bill, you are on very shaky constitutional ground. I have no doubt that if section 220 survives in the bill and ends up in the law, it will be struck down as unconstitutional. But in order to have it struck down, someone will have to file a lawsuit. Someone will have to fund hundreds of thousands and probably millions of dollars to take it through a district court and a circuit court and up to the Supreme Court, although maybe not. I would think any district judge would take one look at this and strike it down. But life being what it is, you can never tell about that. The Supreme Court has spoken often and repeatedly on this issue. The Supreme Court position is very clear. Let's hear them and save the money for the group that would have to take this to the Supreme Court to try to get it reversed. Let's reverse it in the Senate so it does not ever see the light of day. I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment that would strike section 220 and reaffirm that the zenith of the Bill of Rights is free speech, the right to petition your Government for redress of your grievances, and the right to peacefully assemble, all of which is involved in grassroots lobbying and none of which should be criminalized as a result of the legislation that we are considering today. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include these letters in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I yield the floor.