Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1484

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I hesitate to challenge my friend from California. She has a background as a stockbroker. This is an area where she has great expertise. I must share with Members my own experience in trying to recruit directors for a company that would become a public company. They said, ``The grief that goes with being a director under the present law is so overwhelming that I simply do not need it. I will not accept appointment as a director.'' The only way we could change their minds was to assure them that we had 20 million dollars' worth of officer and director insurance. I know from my own experience as a director of a public company that the present law is very stringent and, in my opinion, adequate. I am forbidden, as a director, to buy or sell any securities 30 days prior to a public announcement of our earnings, and, after the announcement has been made, for another 48 hours after that announcement, I cannot enter the market to either buy or sell under the present law. In my opinion, the present law is sufficient. The kind of people that are being talked about in the article that she offers from the Wall Street Journal are breaking the law now and we do not need the redundancy of the Boxer amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the debates have been made. I remember the comment by my colleague from Connecticut during the Whitewater hearings when he said everything that needs to be said has been said but not everybody has said it. So I will try not to say too much about this. Contrary to those who say, gee, everything has been wonderful up until now, the facts clearly demonstrate that there has been a serious problem. It has affected that portion of the stock market that most needs the entrepreneurial thrust of venture capital, and this bill will correct it. I made all of the arguments that I intend to make. I simply want to make one additional observation. This problem has generated action in the House of Representatives. Now it is generating action in the Senate. In my view, the Senate bill is more responsible than the House bill. I congratulate the authors of the bill, Senator Domenici and Senator Dodd, the chairman of the committee, Senator D'Amato, in seeing to it that the Senate version is more responsible than the House version. I look forward to working with them in a conference committee to see that the Senate approach be adopted in every possible circumstance as there are differences between the Senate and the House. These men have worked very hard, very responsibly and intelligently on this bill, and I for one have been delighted to have had the opportunity to work with them. I commend the work product to the entire Senate and, if you will, to the President himself when it gets to him for his ultimate signature. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. It was 11:09.

Mr. BENNETT. Does this bill impose any new fiduciary duty on an institutional investor to its shareholders or beneficiaries, or to other class members, to request service as lead plaintiffs?

Mr. BENNETT. Would the bill require any institutional investor to request that its be appointed as lead plaintiff?

Mr. BENNETT. Section 102 of the legislation would require courts to consider a motion by a purported class member to become a lead plaintiff and would require courts to appoint as lead plaintiff the class member ``most capable of adequately representing the interests of the class member.'' The bill sets up a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person who has made such a motion, who has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and who satisfies the requirements of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This presumption may be rebutted if a member of the class proves that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses. What is the purpose of this provision?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Pell's morning business speech, the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the securities bill tomorrow at 8:40 a.m. All Senators should be aware there will be a rollcall vote beginning at 8:45 a.m. on or in relation to the Specter amendment. Following that vote, there will be a series of votes with a brief period of debate between each vote. The first vote will be 15 minutes in length, and the remaining votes in the series will be only 10 minutes in length. Following the series of votes and 30 minutes of debate, there will be a 15-minute vote on final passage of the securities litigation.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 8:40 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 240, the securities litigation bill, under the provisions of the previous agreement.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet Tuesday, June 27, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on proposals to supplement the legal framework for private property interests, with primary emphasis on the operation of Federal environmental laws.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing to discuss neurological diseases.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, at 2:15 p.m., to hold a hearing on judicial nominees.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Department of Justice oversight.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT. The issue did come up. We did discuss it in the committee at some length. And even though I am not a lawyer, I think I did follow the conversation on this one. My understanding --which I think is what the Senator has said, but I will repeat it so that we have a common basis here--my understanding is that there was concern about different standards and different circumstances. And the committee decided they wanted to codify the standard from the second circuit. Now, the committee intentionally did not provide language to give guidance on exactly what evidence would be sufficient to prove facts giving rise to a strong inference of fraud. They felt that adopting the standard would be sufficient. Obviously, the Senator from Pennsylvania disagrees with that decision. But the decision was intentional. This is not an inadvertent thing that the committee did. And they felt that with the second circuit standard being written into the bill, it was best to stop at that point and allow the courts then the latitude that would come beyond that point. Beyond assuring the Senator that this was a deliberate decision within the committee by the drafters of the bill, both staff and members, I probably cannot give him any further enlightened knowledge on this particular subject.

Mr. BENNETT. I would say--

Mr. BENNETT. Comprehensive is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. President.

Mr. BENNETT. I will concede that this Senator is not prepared to mount that response. I suggest, Mr. President, that the Senator proceed in his scholarly and learned way.

Mr. BENNETT. I would not concede that there is nothing to be said in response to the overwhelming arguments.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I have said earlier in this debate, I am unburdened with the blessing of having been to law school, and as a consequence feel myself inadequate to respond to the learned legal arguments of one of the Senate's best lawyers. As a consequence, Mr. President, I will leave that argument to be made by the chairman of the committee at some future point. I have no response at this time.