Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from South Carolina on his honesty in that he recognizes the proposals with respect to campaign finance reform that have been on this floor are, in fact, unconstitutional. But he seeks to solve the problem with a constitutional amendment, which I think is best summarized in the comment by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, who said this does not amend the first amendment with respect to political speech, it repeals it. I don't want to vote in favor of something that could be considered by as careful a scholar as the Senator from Washington as repealing free speech for politicians. We have the same rights, I think, that everyone else should have. For that reason, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator raises a very worthwhile point. It is my understanding as well that the appropriate way to destroy a flag that has outlived its usefulness, or destroy its remnants, is to burn it. That is considered an act of great respect. So it becomes a question of determining motive; and you can't simply regulate the act, you have to go into an understanding of the motive of the act, and, once again----

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have enjoyed this discussion because it is always enlightening and is the kind of discussion the American people need to hear in the present atmosphere, when there is a rush to blame all of our problems on our campaign finance system, and say: If we only reform the campaign finance system, the millennium will come. Everything will be marvelous. We will vote on Mondays. Our political system will take care of itself. There will be purity throughout all the land. I come to this debate not as a lawyer but as a businessman. One of the things I learned in the business world is: Find out if it works. It is very interesting to have the theory laid out before you, but the question is, Does it work? Will the situation be as advertised before you make the purchase? We have enough examples before us that I think make it clear that the current reforms being talked about--whether it is a constitutional amendment or McCain-Feingold, which I believe would be struck down as unconstitutional--do not work. Let's look at the evidence. Let's see what we have. Stuart Rothenberg has a column in Roll Call, a newspaper with which all of us on the Hill are familiar. This appeared on March 20, 1997, but it is still applicable. It is talking about campaign finance reform applied in the State of Colorado. The headline is: ``Look Before You Leap: Colorado's Lesson on Campaign Finance.'' It goes through and describes the reforms that were established in Colorado, backed by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, setting limits on candidates and limits on contributions. To quote Rothenberg: Now, however, most seasoned political operatives and many candidates will tell you privately that they think the law is terrible. They complain that the limits are too low . . . and they note that the law doesn't address independent expenditures, which will now balloon. That is the point I want to make over and over again: ``independent expenditures, which will now balloon.'' He goes on in the column to say: So instead of making candidates more responsible for the campaign environment, the law actually encourages independent forces to become active. Here is where they have tried it. They have found that special interest power has gone up, not down, and that candidates have been forced out of the equation to a great degree, while special interests have filled the vacuum. He concludes his column by saying: Clearly, the voters don't like the current campaign finance system, and they are eager for change. But they haven't considered the ramifications of many of the proposals, and most of the suggestions for reform have ignored the realities of political campaigns. Reformers would be well advised to start at the beginning, not at the end. If I may be a little parochial for a moment, there is an editorial that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune, my hometown newspaper, entitled ``Don't Ban Soft Money.'' The Salt Lake Tribune is not known for its friendliness to Republican candidates. But they have raised this issue, as is their first amendment right as a newspaper. They say: The campaign-reform prescription of the moment is ``ban soft money.'' Beware. The cure could be worse than the disease. They go on to describe all of that, and then they make the same point as Stuart Rothenberg: A ban on soft money would simply encourage big donors to run issue campaigns themselves. Then a candidate's supporters could do a hatchet job on an opponent without any accountability to anyone. Some groups already are adept at this tactic. I do not know if they ever met, but the Salt Lake Tribune and Stuart Rothenberg are making the same point: If you put the campaign finance reform pressure on the candidate, you increase the power of independent expenditures, you increase the power of special interest groups. Here is a column by Dane Strother, a Democratic political consultant. I am trying to not just quote Republicans here. This appeared in the New York Times on February 1, 1997. He said: Limiting candidates' spending usually succeeds only in giving special interests even more clout. Once again, that is the same statement as these others. I will repeat it: Limiting candidates' spending usually succeeds only in giving special interests even more clout. Consider recent ``reform'' efforts in Kentucky and the District of Columbia. We are dealing with actual results here. We are not dealing with theory. He describes how, when he was living in the District of Columbia, campaign contributions were limited. He says: In 1993, Washington limited contributions in mayoral races to $100-- Boy, that is draconian-- down from $2,000 per election cycle. Some candidates struggled mightily to raise even $30,000, and couldn't get their messages to the public. I lived in the District then, and didn't receive a single political flier or piece of mail. Some do-gooders would find this an improvement, but information is the basis of an educated vote. Then here is the punch line--the same point. He said: Special interests filled the vacuum. Unions and big business set up independent campaigns to help the candidates of their liking, while politicians were reduced to begging them for support. After the election, the City Council returned to the old system. ``Special interests filled the vacuum''--it is the pattern that has been repeated again and again. When you put limits on the ability of a candidate to express himself, to raise the money and get his message out, you create an enormous opportunity for special interests to fill the vacuum. Here is another example. This one had to do with an election in Chicago. It is written by R. Bruce Dold. He talks about the 1984 race where Charles Percy lost his seat to Paul Simon. He said this was brought about, in large measure, because of a campaign run by an outsider whom he identifies as a man named Michael Goland who had no connection whatsoever to Paul Simon but who did not like Charles Percy's voting record. So he ran a series of ads. He spent more than $1 million running his ads, independent of either Percy or Durbin, attacking Percy as a chameleon. He said, if you put pressure on the candidates, you will see far more chameleon ads. He points out that in 1996, the AFL-CIO spent millions of dollars to run ``Mediscare'' ads against Republicans; and then, to balance it, he shows that the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association tried similar maneuvers. He says, summarizing once again: If these groups want to express a political opinion, more power to them. But McCain-Feingold would make them more powerful than the candidates themselves. That is another example, another place. You go to Colorado, you go to Utah, you go to Washington, DC, you go to Chicago--everywhere it is tried, it is demonstrated again and again, the more pressure you put on the candidates in the name of campaign finance reform, the more you give to the special interest groups who then, in the words of one of the columnists there, fill the vacuum. I have more that I would like to say, but I see my colleague from Washington is here, and I want to close so we can hear from him. I simply want to commend to the Members of the Senate an article reprinted from the University of West Los Angeles Law Review written by James Bopp, Jr., and Richard E. Coleson, in which I think they summarize it all in the title of their article. The title is: ``The First Amendment Is Not A Loophole.'' I cannot think of a better summary of this entire debate than that title of this article by these lawyers in this law review: ``The First Amendment Is Not A Loophole.'' Then they add the subhead: ``Protecting Free Expression In The Election Campaign Context.'' I may come back to this article at a later point in the debate. But as I say, now I wish to wind up so we can hear from the Senator from Washington. I cannot think of a better summary than that of this title, and I leave it at that: ``The First Amendment Is Not A Loophole.''

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to add another point to the points I made earlier when I said that holding down the ability of candidates to express themselves in terms of the amount of money they can raise and the amount of advertising they can do only creates an opportunity for special interests to fill the vacuum. There is one other point I need to make with respect to the perceptions on this issue. The first perception, which I have attacked, is that holding down the expenditures and the contributions will somehow control the special interests. I am sure the results of where it has been tried has been in the opposite direction. The special interest rule now through campaign contributions --I want to share this with the Senate. A survey was done in Fortune magazine, published in December of 1999, byline, Jeffrey Birnbaum, who, again, is not normally known for his sympathy of the positions of this Senator, he talks about the impact of money on politics in Washington in this article. Fortune magazine does an annual survey of who has the most clout in Washington, which special interests are the most powerful. For 3 years running now--and in this article it is the same one--the No. 1 special interest that has the most power in Washington, rated by those who have done the survey, is--the envelope please--the AARP, which is a group that, by its rules, does not give any campaign contributions to anyone. The group that is considered the most powerful special interest in Washington by this independent survey is a group that does not give campaign contributions, hard or soft. One of the individuals involved in pulling together the survey, a man from the Mellman Group--Mark Mellman is his name--he is one of the pollsters. He normally polls on the Democratic side of the aisle. I think my Democratic colleagues might recognize his name. He made this comment, ``We couldn't find any direct relationship between campaign donations and clout.'' I think that is worth repeating in this superheated atmosphere about how campaign contributions are ``buying'' the Congress. Here is an outsider coming in to do a survey of the most powerful special interest groups in Washington and how they got their power, and he says: ``We couldn't find any direct relationship between campaign donations and clout.'' The question arises: if their clout does not come from the campaign contributions, why does the AARP have so much power? It is because they have so many members. It is voters who make the difference. What is the group in second place behind the AARP. It is the National Federation of Independent Businessmen. Why do they have so much power? Because they have so many members. It is voters who make the difference. I am sure that no one would want to say to the AARP, in the name of campaign finance reform, we are going to forbid you to tell your members what you think about how people vote in Washington. Are we going to say to the NFIB we are going to forbid you to talk to your own members in the name of campaign finance reform? Those are the groups that are 1 and 2 in this independent survey. You can go through the whole thing and you will begin to realize that all of the conversation about contributions and power in Washington is conversation that takes place in the press gallery. In the reality of where we compete in the election process, it misses the mark. I remember during the hearings someone said: Senator, with this process you are allowing people to buy access to you. I responded then as I respond now: The best way for you to get access to me is to register to vote in the State of Utah. If you are a voter in the State of Utah, I will do my best to get access to you, greet you, sign autographs, make you feel good about me. It will not cost you anything, particularly if you live in Utah. If you don't live in Utah, it would be a little hard to register there. So I think there are some myths that need to be dispelled. The final one I want to address has to do with this question of the amount of money that is flowing and is being raised. I am quoting now from a paper presented by Professor Joel Gora from the Brooklyn Law School, another Democrat, a man who was heavily involved in Senator Eugene McCarthy's insurgent campaign for the Presidency in 1968. He makes this point: Senator McCarthy's landmark and principled 1968 Presidential campaign raised more money, adjusted for inflation, than George W. Bush's campaign this year . . . I didn't hear anybody complaining in 1968 that Eugene McCarthy was a tool of special interests bought with special interest money. He raised more money, adjusted for inflation, than George W. Bush has raised this year. And Professor Gora goes on to say: . . . and did so relying on an extremely small handful of extremely wealthy individuals who shared the ideals and values of Senator McCarthy and his supporters. Only in the perverted post-Watergate world of campaign ``reform'' would the word ``corruption'' or ``the appearance of corruption'' possibly be used to describe that noble endeavor. I didn't support Eugene McCarthy in 1968, but I agree that nobody would have said that Eugene McCarthy in 1968 was a tool of special interests or that he was part of corruption or the appearance of corruption? Why? He disclosed every dollar immediately when it was received, and everybody knew who his supporters were and why they were with him. They were with him because they opposed the war in Vietnam. There is much more that can be said, and undoubtedly will be said, but I want to leave it at that. A number of myths are swirling around this whole debate. We need to look at the reality, which is that every time campaign finance reform has been tried at the State level, the power of special interest groups have gone up, not down, as a result. The reality of it is that we do not have an inordinate amount of money washing through politics today. If you take it on an inflation-adjusted basis, it is the same today as it was back in 1968. We do have a great deal of hysteria which, if we don't puncture the balloon of that hysteria, could lead us to make a seriously significant mistake. I don't want us to do that. That is why I am as vigorous as I can be to see to it that we do not pass the Hollings amendment and we do not, subsequent to that, pass McCain-Feingold. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, intent. And, once again, if you are dealing with the first amendment, the first amendment is very clear that Congress shall make no law that impacts on intent; it only has to do with actual acts. If you speak against the Government, that is fine. If you enter into a conspiracy to actually overthrow the Government, it becomes an overt act, and the act is dealt with, but not your intention to demonstrate your disapproval. So I think the Senator from Kentucky raises a very significant point as to how pernicious this could be if it were part of the Constitution as opposed to a statute.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am not happy rising in this situation because it puts me in a difficult personal conundrum. I have enormous respect for my senior colleague, Senator Hatch, who is a primary sponsor of this resolution. He has been gracious to me as a junior Senator entering this Chamber. He has supported me and guided me and counseled me in ways that are invaluable. I do my very best, on every possible occasion, to stand with Senator Hatch and to support him and recognize his great wisdom, particularly in matters relating to the law. I am unburdened with a legal education, and he is one of the better lawyers in this body, so I do what I can to listen to him and follow him. Unfortunately, on this issue, I am unable to follow him. That is why there is some personal angst in the fact that I take the floor to make this statement. I am not a lawyer, but I do have an academic background as a political scientist. That was my degree in college. In that situation, I spent a good deal of time studying the Constitution, studying the circumstances surrounding its adoption, and studying particularly the Federalist Papers, which were the political tracts written at the time to try to achieve ratification of the Constitution. From that study, I have come to the conclusion that this amendment to the Constitution would be a mistake. Because I have taken an oath in this Chamber to uphold and defend the Constitution to the best of my ability, and have come to the conclusion that I cannot be true to that oath, as I understand it--I cast no aspersions on those who interpret the oath differently--I will not vote for this amendment. People say: What is wrong with it? It is simply enabling language. You read the language, and it is indeed relatively innocuous. Do I think it would damage or mar the Constitution in some fundamental way if it were adopted? No, I don't. So why not go along with my colleague and go along with public opinion and go ahead and put it in the Constitution? Let me share with my colleagues my reasoning on this. The flag is a symbol. By itself, intrinsically, it is nothing more than a piece of cloth or several pieces of colored cloth sewn together. It has great power as a symbol because of what it represents, and we must do what we can to teach respect for that symbol among our youth and to maintain that respect as we mature. The Constitution is something more than a symbol. The Constitution is our fundamental basic law. Everything we do is measured against it. If we do something in this body that does not meet that measure, it is appropriately struck down and made invalid. The Constitution is more than a symbol. We are dealing here with a nonissue. No one is burning the flag in America today in any discernible numbers. No one is creating outcry throughout our populace. No one is doing anything to incite any kind of reaction over this issue. This is a nonissue that came out of the 1960s and 1970s. We are 30 years beyond the time when this was something really happening in this country. If we adopt this amendment, we will be putting a symbol in the Constitution that I do not want my name attached to. The symbol will be this: We will have decided that whenever the Congress, responding to public opinion, disagrees with a Supreme Court decision, they will amend the Constitution, and they will even do it if the issue is a nonissue. The words will lie there. I think they won't make much difference one way or the other, but they will be there as a symbol of our willingness to overturn more than 200 years of tradition with respect to individual rights as outlined in the first amendment. That is a symbol of what I consider to be our foolishness to which I do not want my name attached. For that reason, I am not in support of this amendment. I have taken the floor opposing this amendment on a previous occasion and so do now. I will make one other comment before I sit down. I have just come from a television interview where the issue was campaign finance reform. The Vice President has just made a very long and stirring call to arms that we must somehow protect the Nation against the rising cancer of what he calls ``special interest money.'' I think the Vice President is profoundly wrong in his understanding of what happens in the campaign situation. I will save that discussion for another time. The thing he did not say and that I tried to say in my television response to the Vice President was that he was ignoring the constitutional implications of what he was proposing. As I pointed out to the television audience, one of the more honest members of the Democratic Party, Senator Hollings, will be on the floor in this debate to recognize that you cannot do what the Vice President wants to do with respect to campaign finance reform unless you amend the first amendment, unless you amend the Constitution. There are some who are not as honest as Senator Hollings who are saying you can do it without amending the Constitution. Senator Hollings will have an amendment to the Constitution. Again, I think he is profoundly wrong, but he is at least honest and straightforward and open about his intentions. An editorial ran in the Washington Post some years ago, speaking of myself and other Republicans, and said: If they were really serious in their opposition to campaign finance reform on constitutional grounds, they would oppose the flag amendment as well. I had already made up my mind and had already made public statement of my intention to oppose the flag amendment. I say to those who are in favor of the flag amendment but claim they want the Hollings amendment, they should adopt the same kind of consistency that the Washington Post urged upon the rest of us. If they oppose the flag amendment, they should oppose the Hollings amendment with respect to campaign finance reform as well. The Hollings amendment on its history will lose. It will lose overwhelmingly because most people do not want to tinker with the first amendment. One of my colleagues said: I don't want to look back on my history as a Senator and say the most significant vote I cast the whole time I was there was one that weakened the Bill of Rights. I don't either. I do not intend to vote for the Hollings amendment, and I do not intend to vote for the Hatch amendment. I think it is consistent that we stand firm to protect the liberties of the people to express their views however much we disagree with them. A final footnote, if it is that: The Senator from Kentucky has shown great leadership in crafting a bill that can solve this nonexistent problem for those who insist that we must have a solution in a statutory way. It will not amend the Constitution. It will lay down a statutory marker to which all of us can repair. I urge the adoption of the statutory solution to this situation as drafted by the Senator from Kentucky and urge the Senate not to tinker with the first amendment and first amendment rights, either in the name of protecting the flag or in the name of clean elections, both of which are worthwhile goals. There are better ways to do it. In this Chamber, we can debate those ways. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has raised a very interesting question because, as I understand it, the requirement for a definition would fall to the Congress under this amendment, which means it would be decided by statute. It is the intention of the Senator from Kentucky to solve the whole problem by statute from the beginning. The constitutional amendment would end up being subject to congressional definition, as I understand it, and we would be right back where we are right now. We would have put this symbol in the Constitution and not have resolved any of the issues the Senator from Kentucky raises. I think it is a very appropriate issue to be raised at this point. I can't give you a definition of what constitutes desecration of the flag.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky reminds me of a similar individual in the State of Utah who constantly berates me every time he gets the opportunity on what he considers to be a desecration of the flag, which is the addition of gold fringe to the edge of the flag. He insists that has a particular legal implication and, indeed, went to the point of insisting that if a Federal judge presides in a courtroom where the flag has gold fringe on its edge, the actions of that Federal judge are not legal and that the flag, to be properly displayed, must have no gold edge. I noted on one of the rare times I have been in the Oval Office with President Clinton, the flag that hangs behind the President's desk has a gold edge on it. If indeed we were to come to the conclusion that that was a desecration of the flag and that all acts taken in the presence of a flag thus desecrated were illegal, then every bill signed by the President in the Oval Office under that definition would be illegitimate. Obviously, I don't think it will go to that point. But I think the Senator from Kentucky has made a legitimate point as to who is going to argue which position with respect to what constitutes improper handling of the flag.

Mr. BENNETT. There is no question but that there would be pressures to move in the direction the Senator from Kentucky is talking about. I come back to my same observation, which is that if we wanted to do that, we could do it by statute. We could do it right now. We don't need to amend the Constitution in order for the Congress to pass laws with respect to appropriate flag etiquette and apply penalties to those who violate the flag etiquette. I am not sure I would vote for those kinds of laws, but we have the authority to do that. I think the statute offered by the Senator from Kentucky, of which I have the privilege and honor of being a cosponsor, moves us in the sensible direction to that extent, without leaving behind, as I say, a symbol of, in my view, overreaction in the Constitution itself.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins commemorating the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games. The first modern Winter Olympic Games were held in Chamonix, France in 1924. Since then, the Winter Olympics has been held every four years to recognize outstanding accomplishments of athletes throughout the world. Salt Lake City, Utah is proud to be hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the first Olympic Winter Games of the new Millennium. While it is a great honor for us to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, our state will have a tremendous financial burden placed upon us. The proceeds from these commemorative coins are greatly needed to help us support these events and train future Olympic athletes. I would like to stress that minting these commemorative coins will have no net cost to the Federal Government, and that the proceeds will be distributed equally to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002 and the United States Olympic Committee. Mr. President, this is the smallest Olympic coin program ever, containing only two coins. Additionally, the program has been developed in consultation with the Mint and the numismatic community to address concerns over previous commemorative coin programs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins commemorating the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games. The first modern Winter Olympic Games were held in Chamonix, France in 1924. Since then, the Winter Olympics has been held every four years to recognize outstanding accomplishments of athletes throughout the world. Salt Lake City, Utah is proud to be hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the first Olympic Winter Games of the new Millennium. While it is a great honor for us to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, our state will have a tremendous financial burden placed upon us. The proceeds from these commemorative coins are greatly needed to help us support these events and train future Olympic athletes. I would like to stress that minting these commemorative coins will have no net cost to the Federal Government, and that the proceeds will be distributed equally to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002 and the United States Olympic Committee. Mr. President, this is the smallest Olympic coin program ever, containing only two coins. Additionally, the program has been developed in consultation with the Mint and the numismatic community to address concerns over previous commemorative coin programs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am very supportive of the conference agreement provisions which allow exemptions to the current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I commend Chairman McCain and leadership on creating a process which I believe fairly balances the interests of Senators from States inside the perimeter and those of us from western States without convenient access to Reagan National. I have been involved and supportive of the effort to open up Reagan National since the legislation was first introduced. While I would have preferred to eliminate the perimeter rule altogether or have more slots available for improved access to the West, the final agreement includes 12 slots. I want to reiterate that these limited exemptions must benefit citizens throughout the West. Having said that, this same limited number of exemptions must not be awarded solely or disproportionately to one carrier or one airport. I expect that the DOT will ensure that the maximum number of cities benefit from these 12 slots. I am particularly concerned that small and mid-size communities in the West, especially in the northern tier have improved access through hubs like Salt Lake City. These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule from hubs like Salt Lake City will improve service to the Nation's capital for dozens of western cities beyond the perimeter--while ensuring that cities inside the perimeter are not adversely impacted by new service. This is a fair balance which is consistent with the overall intent of the bill to improve air service to small and medium-sized cities. Throughout this bill, the goal has been to improve air service for communities which have not experienced the benefits of deregulation to the extent of larger markets. The provision relating to improve access to Reagan National Airport is no different. Today, passengers from many communities in the West are forced to double or even triple connect to fly to Reagan National. My goal is to ensure that not just large city point-to-point service will benefit, but that passengers from all points west of the perimeter will have better options to reach Washington, DC, via Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This provisions is about using this restricted exemption process to spread improved access throughout the West--not to limit the benefits to a few large cities which already have a variety of options. Let me be clear, according to the language contained in this provision, if the Secretary receives more applications for additional slots than the bill allows, DOT must prioritize the applications based on quantifying the domestic network benefits. Therefore, DOT must consider and ward these limited opportunities to western hubs which connect the largest number of cities to the national air transportation network. In a perfect world, we would not have to make these types of choices and could defer to the marketplace. This certainly would be my preference. However, Congress has limited the number of choices thereby requiring the establishment of a process which will ensure that the maximum number of cities benefit from this change in policy. Again, Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and his colleagues for their efforts to open the perimeter rule and improve access and competition to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. As a part of my statement I would like to include in the Record a letter sent to Chairman McCain on this matter signed by seven western Senators.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today, the 28th of February, is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the University of Utah. We look back with nostalgia but also look forward with great excitement at the future of that particular university. It is a university to which I am attached both in personal life and by legacy. Both of my parents graduated from the University of Utah. My two brothers and two sisters attended the University of Utah. I graduated from the University of Utah. My wife attended the University of Utah. We are a Utah family. The university started on the 28th of February, 1850. For those who understand Utah history, they will realize that the State, at least to the degree it is now, began on the 24th of July, 1847. So for those who founded the State, to focus on the creation of the University of Deseret, as they then called it, so quickly after they arrived in Salt Lake Valley is a testimony to their vision and their determination to make higher education a very key part of their lives. At that time, there was no infrastructure in the community. There were barely farmhouses and farms that had been created. The first classes of the University of Deseret were held in private homes. The university has come a long way since that time. It is now recognized as one of the premier universities in the United States in a number of areas. The one that they are perhaps best known for is in medicine. The University of Utah is the site of the first artificial heart. It has been the site of other medical breakthroughs. It is currently the home of the Huntsman Cancer Center--a $100 million gift from the Huntsman family to fight cancer in the United States. The Huntsman family decided that the medical school at the University of Utah was sufficiently in the forefront that it would be the place they would have the Huntsman Cancer Center. One other interesting thing that goes back to the founding of the University of Deseret that I think we need to recognize with respect to what the University of Utah is and can do in the future is its physical proximity to the genealogical records that are maintained by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A few months ago, I had a medical researcher come into my office in Salt Lake City, a man who by virtue of his credentials could have gone virtually anywhere in the world, to tell me how excited he was to be at the University of Utah. His specialty, an area of greatest medical concern, is dealing with the disease of diabetes. He went on to point out to me how diabetes many times is the disease that then causes other diseases. He said, statistically people may die from something other than diabetes but, in fact, it was the diabetes in the first instance that caused them to get whatever it was to which they were recorded as having succumbed. He said: The reason I am excited about being at the University of Utah is that the records available in the family history library of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make it possible for researchers at the University of Utah to trace the family history of people with this particular disease in a way no other body of data can. It is a unique experience to be here where you have that kind of link. Of course, when the University of Deseret was founded, it was founded with the full support and, indeed, almost sole support of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So it is appropriate even now, as the university has become a State institution, certainly separate from the church and any of its hierarchy, that there is still the kind of intellectual synergy that can come out of the proximity of the university and the work the church is doing in another area. The University of Utah stands as the flagship research school in my State and, if I may be parochial a little, perhaps for a large part of the West. There are many things done at the University of Utah that radiate beyond our State borders, not only in medicine but in other fields as well. We have a first-class law school to go with the medical school. We give Ph.D. degrees in a wide variety of subjects. The University of Utah is proud to have been in this business for 150 years. I am proud, as a Utah man, to stand on the floor of the Senate and pay tribute to the university and to those farsighted individuals who founded it 150 years ago today.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I said, I have two items to commemorate. That is the first one, an item of some nostalgia looking forward. The second one actually is tomorrow, but I will take advantage of being here now to talk about something that comes to an end tomorrow. The Presiding Officer was intimately involved, as he served as a member of the Senate's Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, a committee that officially goes out of existence tomorrow. There were many who said, when the committee was formed: There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. You will find an excuse somehow, some way, to keep this committee alive for years. It is with some pride I point out that we are not doing that. The committee was organized to deal with the year 2000 technology problem. The committee dealt with the problem. The committee was scheduled to go out of existence on February 29, when presumably the problem would be behind us. The problem is behind us, and the committee will disband as of tomorrow. I pay tribute to the vice chairman of the committee, Christopher Dodd, the Senator from Connecticut. As chairman of the committee, I could not ask for a better partner. I could not ask for a more cooperative or dedicated partner in working on this particular problem. We acknowledge the other members of the committee, starting with the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Senator Kyl from Arizona; Senator Moynihan from New York; Senator Smith from Oregon; Senator Edwards from North Carolina, who was preceded on the committee by Senator Bingaman from New Mexico; Senator Lugar from Indiana, who was preceded on the committee by the junior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins; and then, of course, the two ex officio members of the committee who attended committee hearings, paid attention to the committee activities, and contributed significantly to it, that is, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd. There are many people who say: Well, you really didn't have a problem, did you? You formed this committee, and then, look, nothing happened with respect to Y2K. It reminds me a little of the story attributed to Bob Hope, who said: You know, I really don't appreciate the way the Army treats me when I go out on these USO tours over the holidays. At Christmas, I go all around the world to put on shows for the GIs. They tell me I am going into dangerous parts of the world, so they use me as a pin cushion; they fill me full of shots before I go. It is a complete waste of time because I have never gotten sick once in any of these places. I think that can be said to a certain extent with respect to the Y2K problem. Many people are saying: Gee, you wasted all our time and money. Look, nothing happened. The record is fairly clear that had we, as a Nation, not focused on this issue and dealt with it, we would have had very significant problems. When the committee was formed, I set one goal, among others, which I believe we very much met and I feel very proud about having achieved. As we looked out over the Nation and, indeed, the world with respect to the Y2K problem, the one thing that was clear was that no one knew the extent of the problem. No one knew how it was going to play out, and there was no place one could go to get that information. So I challenged the staff as well as the members of the committee. I said: If we do nothing else in this committee, we will become the repository of accurate information about Y2K. All over the world, people will know that if they want to find the best source of where things are with respect to Y2K, they will want to come to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. I believe we met that challenge. I believe by the last few months of Y2K, it was recognized virtually around the world that the Senate reports on Y2K were the most authoritative, the most complete, and ultimately the most dependable. A lot of people don't realize we were saying in those last few months: There will not be a Y2K problem in the United States. I used to say that in speeches, and I would have people challenge me: How can you say that? Sometimes they would quote my own earlier speeches back to me because early on I was raising the alarm and predicting significant problems. I was predicting those problems on the basis of the information then available. But as the committee fulfilled its function and became the repository of accurate information, committee spokesmen and women would stand and say again and again: We are probably not going to have any serious problems in the United States. Then people said to us: Well, why did you miss it overseas? There weren't serious problems overseas? I have two observations on that. First, we did not have the same degree of accurate information about situations overseas that we had in the United States. We were unable to reach the same level in dealing with information that came from outside the country as we did from information within the country. Second, we had more problems overseas than the press has reported. There were many people who were simply embarrassed about their Y2K problem and didn't talk about it. Indeed, we had some examples before the committee of problems that did exist and were later denied simply because of the embarrassment people would feel if they admitted they had had difficulties. The ultimate question is: Was it worth it? Did we, in fact, make a contribution worth the amount of money we spent to staff this committee? I say without any hesitation, yes, it was very much worth it. We are seeing benefits over and above the contribution the committee made to alleviating the problem. John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense, has publicly stated: If it were not for the process we went through to deal with Y2K in the Defense Department, we would have had serious Y2K problems and we would not have the information we now have. In responding to the pressure from Y2K, the Defense Department, for the first time in its history, now has an inventory of all of their computer systems together with a ranking as to which of those systems are mission critical and which are not. One might think in a straight management assignment the Defense Department would have that information anyway. They did not have it before we caused them, in an effort to respond to the inquiries from the committee, to go through the process of gathering it. Alan Greenspan has been quoted as saying that in American industry at large, the effect of the Y2K remediation activity has caused American business men and women to understand their vulnerability and dependability on computers in a way they never understood before and that the investment of bringing everything up to the highest possible level is an investment that will pay significant financial dividends for the economy in the years ahead. So as I look back on those activities and those accomplishments, I express satisfaction for the work of the committee, a degree of satisfaction for whatever contribution I may have been able to make as its chairman but ultimately enormous gratitude to the members of the committee and to the members of the staff. When Senator Dodd and I were appointed, respectively, as vice chairman and chairman of this group, we made the determination we would not have a partisan staff. While it was partisan in the formal sense that there was a minority director and so on, it was housed in the same facility; the members of the staff were majority or minority and worked together on a daily basis. We had a number of detailees from a variety of agencies who came to us and brought a level of professional expertise we could never have achieved in any other way. We maintained throughout the entire exercise a determination to get the job done that was not interfered with by any attempt at staff bickering or posturing for any partisan purposes. I pay tribute to Senator Dodd for his willingness to join me and, indeed, for his leadership in pushing me in that direction, and to the people whom he appointed as minority members of the staff. I also pay tribute to the administration and John Koskinen, who held the position on behalf of the President. There, also, there was no partisanship and no posturing for any partisan advantage. For the sake of the record, I want to read into the Record the names of the staffers who helped us with this accomplishment. They are: Robert Cresanti, staff director. Before being staff director, he worked with me on the Banking Committee to raise the initial alarm with respect to this possibility. T.M. Wilke Green, appointed by Senator Dodd as minority staff director; John B. Stephenson, who came from the GAO, the deputy staff director. Then we had Thomas Bello, professional staff; Tania Calhoun, committee counsel; James P. Dailey, professional staff; Paul Hunter, professional staff--these people were absolutely magnificent in the degree of expertise and professionalism they brought to us--Unice Lieberman, minority press secretary; Sara Jane MacKay, legislative correspondent; Don Meyer, press secretary; J. Paul Nicholas, professional staff; Frank Reilly, professional staff; Noelle Busk Ringel, our archivist. The clerk was Amber Sechrist, who came out of my office in a very professional and solid way. We also had Ronald Spear, professional staff, and Deborah Steward, GPO representative. To all of these men and women, I pay tribute and extend my warmest thanks and gratitude for the work they have done. Tomorrow, off the presses will come ``Y2K Aftermath--Crisis Averted, Final Committee Report.'' With the issuance of this report, the committee no longer exists. But as Secretary Hamre, Chairman Greenspan, and others have said, the benefits of the committee will live on over and above whatever benefits we had for averting the crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to note two events, one historic today and one somewhat historic tomorrow--one looking a little bit back with some nostalgia and the other looking back with some degree of finality.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Are we in a quorum call?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, finally, I would inquire whether I am correct that, consistent with the principle of functional regulation applied throughout this legislation, the determination whether an investment made by an insurance company is made in the ordinary course of business in accordance with relevant state law should be made by the insurance authority of the state in which the insurance company is located.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, would the chairman please yield to me for a question?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee whether the managers felt so strongly that they chose to highlight this exemption for encrypted account numbers in report language. We would hope the regulators would use this exemptive authority. Isn't that true?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee. It is my understanding that section 401 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is intended to prohibit acquisitions of grandfathered unitary thrift holding companies by commercial companies. Section 401 is not intended to prohibit acquisitions of grandfathered unitary thrift holding companies by companies that, immediately prior to the acquisition, engage only in the activities permissible for financial holding companies. Is that correct?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I also seek clarification of the chairman of the Banking Committee that section 401 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is not intended to limit or otherwise affect the powers and authorities of grandfathered unitary thrift holding companies after such companies are acquired by companies that, immediately prior to the acquisition, engage only in the activities permissible for financial holding companies. Is that correct?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to take a step in addressing the long-term water needs of Summit County, Utah. The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. This legislation would permit non-federal water intended for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other uses to utilize federal facilities of the original Weber Basin Project for various purposes such as storage and transportation. In this case, the Smith Morehouse Dam and Reservoir was constructed by the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District in the early 1980's using local funding resources in order to create a supply of non-federal project water. However, it has been determined that there is currently a need to deliver approximately 5,000 acre feet of this non-federal Smith Morehouse water in conjunction with approximately 5,000 acre feet of federal Weber Basin project water to the Snyderville Basin area of Summit County, Utah and to Park City, Utah. In 1996, the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement to deliver this water approximately 14 miles from Weber Basin Weber River sources within a certain time frame and dependent upon the execution of an Interlocal Agreement with Park City and Summit County. The Warren Act requires that legislation be enacted to enable the District to move ahead with this agreement with Summit County and Park City to deliver the water utilizing built Weber Basin Project facilities built by the Bureau of Reclamation. There is an immediate need for the delivery of water to this area. The Utah State Engineer halted the approval of new groundwater developments in the area last year. At the same time, Summit county is experiencing tremendous growth; in fact it is one of the highest growth areas in the state. The areas to be served are within the area taxed by the Weber Basin District, and there is a definite need for a public entity to build a project to supply an adequate, reliable, and cost effective water delivery project to meet the future demands of this area. Since there is precedent allowing the wheeling of non-federal water through federal facilities, my colleagues should realize that this is a non-controversial piece of legislation. Therefore, I hope that Congress will move quickly to pass this legislation next session and I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on the Energy Committee to move it quickly.