Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come--and I understand there will be stacked votes--and talk on several amendments, one that was the subject of debate earlier. I asked my distinguished chairman if I could make a quick comment on it, and he agreed that might be appropriate. There is an article in today's Wall Street Journal that I think has bearing on the debate, today's news today, if you will, which says: ``Big Accounting Firms Weed Out Risky Clients.'' If you have a big-name auditor, hold on tight. It's getting a lot tougher to find--and keep--prestigious outside auditors to certify annual financial statements. The statement that I think is appropriate in this article, to this debate, referring to a partner at Peat Marwick, is where he talks about: When a client we audit goes bust . . . it costs us a bundle in court if we're sued by investors, whether we win or lose the case. Mr. Lambert says that legal costs are ``staggering'' for a lawsuit filed in a Federal court in Texas alleging a faulty review of a bank's books by Peat. The bank was taken over by the Federal Government in 1992 after big losses. The jury ruled in Peat's favor in 1993, but the firm had to spend $7 million to defend itself even though the fee for the job was $15,000. Mr. Lambert says, ``We just can't afford to take on risky audit clients anymore.'' That is what will happen if we do not pass this legislation, Mr. President. People are going to be denied access to accountants, who will not run the risk of a $7 million legal fee, even when they are exonerated, for a $15,000 auditing fee. They will simply not be available, and the end that we are all seeking in this legislation, which is to protect investors, will be frustrated if the amendment dealing with the joint and several liability is adopted.

Mr. BENNETT. The amendment before us is on the statute of limitations. We have heard all of these arguments. I do not want to repeat them over and over again. Simply, from my business experience, I tell you the impact of the statute of limitations which is hanging over business. If you have a statute of limitations that is 5 years, you have to keep all your records for 5 years; you have to be concerned about what is going to happen to you in 5 years, even though you know nothing has gone wrong, and you get yourself into that circumstance. If there were time, I could describe circumstances where the lawyers wait until the last moment before the expiration of the statute, no matter when it is, in order to panic the situation. It becomes a device, if you will, that plays into the hands of the people that are seeking to do the kinds of things we are talking about here. I believe 3 years is long enough. I believe that it is a salutary thing to say to the lawyers, if you suspect there is fraud, get on with it quickly and do not play the game of playing it out those extra 2 years and hoping in that extra 2-year period that people will be a little sloppy in recordkeeping and you will be able to create greater uncertainty than you would if you acted in a timely fashion. Memories fade after 3 years, legal suits become much more difficult to pursue after 3 years. I think the 3 years that are in the bill are appropriate. For that reason, I am opposing the amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are talking about strike suits on behalf of professional plaintiffs, and a professional plaintiff could easily fit within the category of the Senator's amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to.

Mr. BENNETT. I know that the Senator from Maryland was scheduled to speak first, but no one was here, so I started. I would be happy to yield now if the Senator wishes to speak.

Mr. BENNETT. I agree that the time of my statement will be charged against our time on the amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. I apologize.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request that at 8:30 this evening Senator D'Amato be recognized to make a motion to table the motion to commit the bill.

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

Mr. BENNETT. You speak of clientless lawyers and clientless cases. Is that the reason all of the money goes to the lawyers and not to the clients?

Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding that the judge referred to him in one case as ``the unluckiest investor in the world'' because he was always suing for losses. He did not invest in order to make any money. He invested so he could be a professional plaintiff, and he was in court so often the judge referred to him in that manner.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has been patient and is scheduled to be the next speaker. Before we hear from her, I have been asked to perform a few housekeeping details. Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has asked me to announce on his behalf that he cannot come here at the moment. I am sure the Senator from Illinois is delighted that that means she will not be delayed further. But he did ask that the statement be made on his behalf that as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he opposes the referral contained within this motion. I ask unanimous consent that at 8:30 this evening Senator D'Amato be recognized to make a motion to table the motion to commit the bill.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I have just had a quick opportunity to review this. Clearly I will want to talk to my senior colleague, Senator Hatch. But my first reaction to this is that this would be agreeable. It would delay the implementation, as I understand it, of the present rules until December and give us that much more time to try to work things out with the Department of the Interior. Our Governor made it clear to Secretary Babbitt that the proposals, as they currently stand, are not acceptable and cannot be fixed. We have to start completely from scratch. So that is the position we have taken and I take on behalf of the Governor. But I obviously want to check with Senator Hatch before I give a final signoff on this issue.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. We hope he not only comes to celebrate with us in 2002, but if I may, Mr. President, I hope he comes as a Senator in 2002, having been safely reelected between now and then.

Mr. BENNETT. We do, Mr. President. Winter snows are not unknown in Utah. We hope in 2002 they do not desert us. The Senator from Virginia is very generous in his remarks. He has been to the Senators' Ski Cup and, indeed, has an award named after him for his activity there.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Members of this body have had experience in Utah with our winter sports facilities, as my predecessor, Jake Garn, invited Senators to come to Utah and enjoy the Senators' Ski Cup. It is now my happy duty and privilege to announce to all of the Members of the Senate that the winter sports facilities of Utah have now attracted more than even the U.S. Senate. Just a few minutes ago, the International Olympic Committee announced that Salt Lake City, UT, will be the site of the Winter Olympics in the year 2002. This is a demonstration of the superior facilities that are available in Utah. We think it is well deserved. I want to pay tribute here on the floor to the thousands, if not tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands, of Utahns who have gathered together to support the Olympic bid. We lost it for the 1998 Olympics by one vote. We have learned here in this body how elections can be decided by one vote. There are some who suggested that the awarding of the Summer Olympics to Atlanta in 1996 hurt our bid, as the International Committee felt they did not want to have Winter and Summer Olympics back-to-back in the same country. Be that as it may, the disappointment of losing in 1998 has now been washed away in the excitement of winning in the year 2002. We have a slogan in Utah that has been prepared for the Olympics. It is emblazoned on the banners as you come into our city. It is in the airports. It is all over the State. It is: ``The world is welcome here.'' We are delighted to be able to announce that the world that has been welcome in Utah is now coming to Utah. We are looking for the most exciting Winter Olympics in history in the State of Utah in just a few short years. We were so excited I had to come over to share this news with the Members of the Senate. I thank the Chair and the Members for the opportunity to express this. It is a great day for the people of our State and, frankly, for the people of our Nation as well. This is the first time the Winter Olympics have come back to America since Lake Placid in 1980. I think that is a long enough wait. We are delighted to be able to say, as I said, the world is welcome in Utah. And the world is coming to Utah.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act Amendments of 1995. This legislation amends title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to expand participation of public water providers in water reuse and recycling projects. This bill provides a sensible and lasting solution to the growing problem of dwindling municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supplies in many areas of the country. This bill will also help protect and preserve environmentally sensitive watershed environments by reducing demand for freshwater supplies. In my home State, Utah, water is a precious commodity and this legislation will allow for the better use and management of our limited water supply. In particular, both Salt Lake City and St. George will greatly benefit from this legislation. Economically and environmentally, the next step to guaranteeing more dependable and cheaper supplies of water is water reuse and recycling. Recycling programs treat wastewater so that it can be safely used to irrigate land, golf courses, crops, and freeway medians, and replenish groundwater basins. Recycled water is also increasingly being used by industry. In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation has ended their chapter of building large western dams. Their mission now is to assist in the water management of existing water supplies. From a public policy point of view, it is far cheaper to help our local western communities recycle their water than it is to construct new reservoirs and water delivery facilities. This legislation accomplishes this goal. Past Federal legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and the Central Valley Improvement Act have placed tremendous stress on fresh water reserves by mandating that large portions of water sources be diverted from use by municipal water suppliers to be dedicated to general fish and wildlife and habitat purposes. As a result, public water agencies have begun to search for alternative sources of water to meet the demands of rising populations and the limiting effects of regulatory burdens. The costs of importing water over great distances or storing vast reserves of water have begun to make other sources of water more economically feasible. The added environmental benefits also make these sources increasingly desirable. Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 provides for water recycling projects and has been a major success. It should be considered a model for other infrastructure funding efforts. Compared to other Federal programs it is ``user friendly'' and virtually free of red tape, and because the program is highly leveraged, meaning 75 percent local cost sharing, it is not subject to criticism for subsidizing unworthy projects. As a result the water recycling program has enjoyed wide bipartisan support in Congress and from both the Bush and Clinton administrations. It is also backed by national and local environmental organizations. Because of the success of Title XVI, communities from around the country are beginning to look at water recycling as not only an attractive new way to serve their customers but also the environment. This is a unique, win-win program which goes a long way toward preparing for the future, preserving fresh water reserves protecting the Nation's environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I am introducing along with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, a bill to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to accept prepayment of portions of the Central Utah Project [CUP]. In 1992, Congress enacted Public Law 102- 575 which contained the Central Utah Project Completion Act of CUPCA. Section 210 of CUPCA authorized the Secretary to negotiate and accept early payment from the waterusers for the Jordan Aqueduct component of CUP. This prepayment ultimately proved to be a win/win deal for both the Federal Government and for the waterusers. Shortly after the agreement was signed on October 18, 1993, which concluded the terms of the prepayment, the Federal Government received a check from the local waterusers totaling $35.2 million. The local water districts have also saved money through the refinancing by shortening the total number of payments they must make. The legislation we introduce today amends section 210 of the CUPCA broadens the Secretary's ability to accept prepayment from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District for the rest of the District's debt to the Federal government on the same terms and conditions that were negotiated for the Jordan Aqueduct. According to estimates provided by the district's bonding counsel, it is expected that prepayment of the district's remaining debt could yield the Federal Treasury between $145 to $200 million over the next 4 to 5 years. Mr. President, this is a significant amount of money which we are in certain need of as we move to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. I want to say that this bill does nothing with respect to title to the water project features. They will remain in the name of the United States. This bill is a simple prepayment which will save the Central Utah Water Conservancy District money by shortening its repayment term and will provide the Federal Government a significant amount of revenue at a most critical time. It is my understanding that the extension of this prepayment authority has been reviewed by the district with the Secretary's official representative to the CUP and that the Department of the Interior will support this legislation. I want to thank the district and the Department of the Interior for working together to bring about this win-win scenario. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership shown on the wilderness issue by my senior colleague, Senator Hatch. He carries tremendous responsibility in this body by virtue of his elevation to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, and there are some political opponents who would have suggested that by virtue of that responsibility he might be less attentive to Utah issues than he might otherwise be. I assure the people of the State and the people of the Nation that that is not true. He is very attentive to Utah issues and he has demonstrated that in his leadership in this matter. All Members are grateful to him and to our Governor, Michael O. Leavitt, for the work they have done on this issue. Senator Hatch has outlined the details of this proposal. I would like to make a few additional points for those that may not understand some of the factors relating to the Utah wilderness question. Some groups have said that the Utah wilderness issue is the premier environmental issue of this Congress, and they are prepared to fight to the last possible breath in order to set aside 10 percent of the State in BLM wilderness. They say we must do at least 10 percent for our children. Those who are unfamiliar with the State of Utah might be impressed by this argument, because after all, 10 percent seems like a relatively small amount to set aside for future generations for some kind of preservation. I have a map here, Mr. President, that I think will put this argument in its proper perspective. If we look at the portion in the map that is in green, it amounts to approximately 8 million acres. This is land in the National Forest Service. That which is in dark green has already been designated as wilderness in Forest Service land, but 8 million acres have been set aside for future generations. There will be no McDonald's hamburger stands. There will be no strip malls. There will be no Marriott hotels built in these 8 million acres. During the hearings, we were threatened with all of those things. If we do not set this aside as wilderness we will have McDonald's hamburger stands and strip malls all over the State. Here are 8 million acres that will not get that. In addition, we see this dark purple area in various places on the map. Those are national parks and recreation areas with set-asides for fish and wildlife preservation, comprising over 2 million acres. So when we add those to that in green we get a 10 million acre set-aside. Now, if we add the additional 1.8 million that Senator Hatch's and my bill calls for in BLM wilderness, that is shown here in the green area, the total comes to approximately 12 million acres. That, Mr. President, is not 10 percent of the State, it is 20 percent of the State set aside for the future generations, making sure that there will be on these 12 million acres no economic development other than that which is already permitted in the Wilderness Act, which is to say, grazing, minerals, and other multiple uses of the public licenses. The additional land that is shown in yellow, Mr. President, is BLM land. Once again, the BLM will not allow the building of a strip mall or a McDonald's hamburger stand or a hotel on these 22 million acres. The amount of acreage left to private hands, when we take the military reservations--that is what this is--and the Indian reservations--that is what this is--the amount left to private hands in the State of Utah is shown in white. In the demagoguery around this issue, some people have said can we not set aside 10 percent of the land? Is not 90 percent enough for the developers? I show this chart, and just say that which is in white is what is available to developers. Frankly, it is located upon the corridors of highways that are already in place. What we have proposed, Senator Hatch and I, is perfectly proper, legitimate, wilderness use. However, it will not freeze out the multiple use that could take place in this BLM land. People say that wilderness calls for multiple use. Wilderness calls for grazing if it is already established. Wilderness calls for mineral exploration if the leases have already been signed. I close with this example of what has happened to that truth. That is, it is true the wilderness bill calls for this multiple use on wilderness land if it has already been established. We have a prime example of what the 1964 Wilderness Act had in mind down in southern Utah on the Kaiparowits Plateau. On the Kaiparowits there are close to 300,000 acres that would be considered part of a wilderness activity, and we have set aside a good portion of that in our bill. In that acreage, there is an existing mineral lease, a coal lease. It is owned by a company called Andalex, named after the two children of the owner of the company, Andrew and Alexander. The company is named Andalex. The Andalex coal leases have existed for years. Under the Wilderness Act, a careful reading of it, they can continue to exist, and Andalex can extract coal from that area. Those people who are insisting on heavier acreage have said over their dead bodies will they allow Andalex to rape the wilderness for the sake of the coal. That is the kind of rhetoric that has surrounded this debate. Mr. President, over the last week, during the recess, I went to the Andalex coal facility. What did I find? Out of the roughly 300,000 acres of the Kaiparowits, the Andalex coal mine would require 40 acres. Not 40,000--40. Four-zero, with no zeros after. The 40 acres, by happy coincidence, happen to be at the bottom of a circular canyon, so if you are not standing on the edge of the canyon looking down, you cannot see it from anywhere in this entire area. If the Wilderness Act of 1964 says anything, it says that the Andalex proposal should go forward. Yet the people who are saying that Senator Hatch and I are not taking care of future generations are turning around and putting the Wilderness Act on its head by saying we will not permit a coal operation on 40 acres because somehow it would destroy the wilderness experience the surrounding 300,000 acres. Mr. President, I focus on that because it demonstrates the degree to which we have gotten away from reality in this debate. I hope the Congress in its wisdom will come back to reality and intelligence on this issue.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chair. Let us talk for just a minute, although it may seem extraneous to the discussion we have had, about what the amendment does. Let us talk about the parliamentary situation with which we are faced, rather than about cosmic matters relating to education in general. The total amount of Federal spending in America's educational system comes to 6.6 percent of the total figure. So we are talking about what happens to that Federal 6.6 percent. With all of this talk about gigantic slashes, even if we were to eliminate all of it that would be a 6.6 percent cut. But of course we are not talking about eliminating all of it. We are talking about funding here at a level that has been established in fiscal 1992. Someone says, ``Why do you go back to 1992?'' Simply because as I understand the budget process, there was a strong blip up in 1993 and 1994, and the Budget Committee has gone back to the level that they would consider to be more traditional, to hold that level through the year 2002. So we are talking about level funding, not slashing all of the 6.6 percent. From some of the rhetoric I have heard on the floor this afternoon you would think we were cutting the entire educational system of the country by huge, huge amounts when in fact the amendment proposed by the Budget Committee would establish a level of funding for that which is 6.6 percent of the total rather than the other implications we have had. Do Washington education dollars fund my daughter's textbooks? No. That is all done with State and local funds. So this budget has nothing to do with textbooks. Do Washington education dollars pay for my son's teachers? No. That is all done with State and local funds. This has nothing to do with the paying of teachers' salaries. Then do Washington education dollars build my neighborhood schools? No. We are not talking about building schools, paying teachers, buying textbooks or supplies. The Federal dollars we are talking about go to very specific programs, primarily to assist State and local governments in efforts for special populations: Disadvantaged, individuals with disabilities-- Federal dollars go to assist State and local people in that population. I stress assist, because, once again, the bulk of the funds come from the States and the localities. I will address that in just a moment. It goes to assist those with special needs: Bilingual education, drug use prevention, dropout prevention and so on. Some assists with research. The programs with the largest outlays in the Federal dollars are Indian education, impact aid, school improvement--that is drug-free schools--math and science improvement kinds of things, education for the disadvantaged--we call Chapter 1 programs--and, as I say bilingual education, special education, rehabilitation services for those with disabilities, some vocational, libraries and so on. I alluded, in my opening comment, to my experience as chairman of the Strategic Planning Commission for Education in the State of Utah. We looked over the budget. That is where you start. You look at the numbers. And as the folks were outlining the budget to me, I said, ``Can we move any money from this to this?'' I was told, ``Oh, no. You cannot move any money from this function to that function.'' ``Why not?'' I am coming in as a businessman, all excited with this assignment from the State Board of Education. I am going to show them some sound business practices--all the naivete that comes with that kind of assignment, with those who really do not understand what they are getting into. I was told: ``You cannot move this money from this program to this program because when it is over here, it is matching Federal funds.'' And naively I said ``Oh, matching Federal funds? OK. I understand that. We are spending 50-cent dollars, are we? The Fed put up 50 cents, and we put up 50 cents. I can understand that. Is it not wonderful to spend 50 cents out of every dollar?'' ``Oh,'' they said. ``Bob, you really are naive. The Feds do not put up 50 cents. The Feds will put up 15 cents and require you to match the 85.'' ``Oh. Well then,'' I said,''in that case, if we do not like the program, let us just tell the Feds to keep their 15 cents, and we will spend the 85 cents someplace else.'' Once again, with the shake of the head, ``Bob, are you naive? You have to put up the 85 cents whether you want to or not. The Federal law requires it.'' I said, ``Wait a minute. What is it? Matching funds? Matching means 50-50.'' They said ``No. Matching means whatever the Feds decide it means.'' ``You mean we cannot refuse the 15 cents? We have to take the 85 cents, whether we want to or not, and spend it in this program?'' They said, ``Now you are beginning to understand.'' I said, ``What would happen if we did refuse the 15 cents?'' They said, ``The Federal Government would sue you. And they would win.'' I said, ``Isn't there any program of matching funds where the Feds put up at least 50 cents out of every dollar?'' They said, ``Yes. There is one program where the Feds put up 50 cents out of every dollar. It is school lunch. But everything else the Feds put up less than 50 cents and the States have to put up more.'' So they said, in effect, even though the Federal Government only puts up 6 percent of the total educational budget, the Federal Government controls the State priorities through this process because they distort how you are spending your State funds. My first education, if you will, in education and the discovery of how intrusive the Federal Government can be. Somehow I came back here with the desire that that ought to be changed. And this budget resolution which begins to level out rather than continue to spiral up Federal spending, I think, gives us an opportunity to effect that kind of change. We have heard a great deal on this floor about the cost of college education, how we need to bring down the cost of college education, to do something about student loans, as this budget resolution does, and that it would be devastating to every college student who has to borrow money to go to college. Now, in this debate they are ignoring one very important thing when they say that. I am about to yield time to the senior Senator from New Mexico because he has a chart on this and is ready to talk to us about that. The important thing to remember is that the Congressional Budget Office has told us that, if we adopt this budget resolution, interest rates will come down. That means students who borrow money to go to school will have to pay back less because they have lower interest rates. Not only those students who are borrowing student loans, but also those students who, for one reason or another, cannot get a student loan [[Page S7097]] will also benefit as a result of this budget resolution. The benefit will be across the board. All students who have to go into debt to pay their college education, whether themselves or their parents, will benefit as a result of this budget resolution, and you are diluting that if you adopt this amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will have some opening remarks, but my colleague from Indiana wishes to speak first, and so we will turn to him. But before I do, and while my friends from the other side are still on the floor, I would like to make one opening comment for myself that I believe resonates with other Members on this side. Senator Wellstone said if you want to solve poverty, focus on education; if you want a solid middle class, focus on education; if you want a sound working force--et cetera--focus on education. I wish the record could be very clear that this Senator could not agree more with that statement. Indeed, if I may be personal, Mr. President, the thing that got me back into public life after I had left it and decided that I would spend the balance of my career in the private sector as a business executive was when I got a phone call asking me to serve as chairman of the Strategic Planning Commission for Education in the State of Utah. For the next 18 months, I immersed myself in educational issues. I came out of that with the conviction that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, education has replaced defense as the No. 1 survival issue in this country. So I yield to no one on either side of the aisle in my conviction that we must, as a Nation, solve our educational problem. But I ask this rhetorical question as we begin this debate: As we agree about the importance of education, does that mean that there is no such thing as an educational program that is not working and may need to be defunded? Does that mean, in our conviction that education is essential to our survival, that there is not anything in the Department of Education that could be done more efficiently than is being done today and might, indeed, with better management yield up some hard-earned dollars to go toward balancing the budget? Does that mean we cannot have a lucid discussion about education in this Chamber that focuses on the effectiveness of the educational dollars that we are spending because education is such a Holy Grail that nothing relating to its effectiveness or its performance can be discussed? If that is what it means, then I think the debate in this Chamber will not be particularly enlightening on this subject to either side. Before I yield time to the Senator from Indiana, I would like to review the overall record. In unadjusted dollars, Federal spending for education has gone up 900 percent from 1965 to 1993. In constant dollars, it has more than doubled in that same time period. And what has happened to our educational achievements in the period when we have been doubling our commitment? The national assessment of educational progress says that over the past 20 years, there has been little overall change in student proficiency in reading, writing, science, and mathematics. The senior Senator from New York, prior to his entering this Chamber, was a distinguished writer, and I remember reading an article by him where he said whimsically--and we all know he is given to whimsy at times--if you were to put educational achievement and educational spending on the same chart and track the trend lines, you would come to the conclusion that increased spending produces decreased performance in a straight cause-and-effect relationship. The senior Senator from New York obviously does not believe it. He did not believe it when he said it, but he said it to make the point that the problems in education are not necessarily problems of money. I came to that conclusion in the 18 months that I immersed myself in educational issues in Utah. I am dedicated to doing what I can to resolve and repair educational problems in this country. I have established a foundation to which I have given my personal wealth, whose primary focus right now is exploring new ways of solving our educational problems. We have some pilot projects which I may talk about where we are achieving dramatic breakthroughs in teaching and learning progress among disadvantaged students without any increase in costs. With that opening statement, then, Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand we have 82 minutes.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am more than happy to continue the dialog after I vote for the budget resolution.