Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I seek recognition then.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman of the committee. I rise with my fellow members of the committee to express my delight at this particular piece of legislation and the fact that we have come to where we are. I take note of the work of Geoff Gray, Linda Lord, Wayne Abernathy, and other members of the committee staff who have provided such tremendous support for this. They have been available not only to the chairman but to members of the committee as well in a way that has been tremendously helpful. I make that acknowledgment of their contribution. I will focus for just a moment on the issues of privacy. Most of the other issues relating to this bill have already been aired and discussed. I don't need to add to that. But I have paid a lot of attention to the whole privacy issue for the last 3\1/2\, 4 years, primarily because of my interest in medical confidentiality. I am the prime sponsor of the bill relating to confidentiality of medical records and, frankly, have had quite an education in the whole privacy area as a result of that. We are in a new world. That has become a cliche but, as with most cliches, it happens to be true. We are in a new world now where information is available at a level and a quantity that has never been the case before. Those who complain about this and want to go back to the anonymity of the pre-electronic age are wishing for something that is simply not going to happen. Those who call themselves ``privacy advocates,'' who have attacked certain portions of this bill, are wishing for a world that is long gone. The only question now with respect to the information that is available to us is not will it be available but, rather, how will it be responsibly used. One of the things that many of the privacy advocates ignore is the reality of the marketplace. Having been a businessman prior to coming to the Congress, I want to talk about that for a minute. The privacy advocates think Government must intervene on behalf of the consumers against rapacious businesses that would somehow use the information available to them in a way to do damage to those consumers. I suppose there are some businesses that might be so foolish as to do that, but the vast majority of businesses recognize that the only way they survive is on repeat business, and the only way they get repeat business is to keep their customers happy. I remember, during the hearings, Congressman Markey raised some specters and gave us examples of abuses that banks had made of credit card information of some of their customers. I made the comment there, and I will repeat it here: If a bank did to me what Congressman Markey accused a bank of doing to one of its customers, I would change banks. I can solve the problem on my own very quickly. I don't need the Government to step in in that situation to protect me. Furthermore, the bankers I deal with, such as the retailers and others that want to sell me something, are very anxious not to offend me. They are very anxious to keep me happy. So if they start using this information that they have, as a result of the information age, in a way to service my needs better, they are going to keep me happy. If Government interferes with their ability to do that, Government will get in the way. On the other hand, if they--that is, the banks--use this information in a way I don't like, they jeopardize our relationship, and they jeopardize my business. We must understand here in the Congress that customers are not the captives of the business and banking organizations that depend upon them for revenue. Customers are the reason for their existence, and customers, consequently, truly are king. That is another cliche that a lot of people who haven't been in business don't understand, but it is true. The customer is king. If you do anything that violates your trust with the customer, you are going to pay for it, and you are going to pay for it in real dollars. So I believe the balance that has been struck in this bill to provide the right amount of privacy protection is the correct balance, and I think we must take some time and see how it works out in the real world of real commerce before we panic and say we must pass further Federal regulations. With that, I record my approval of the work of the chairman and the ranking member with respect to the conference and all of the difficulties connected therewith, and say this is a historic day that we are finally reaching after many, many years of wrangling on this subject. I yield the floor. securities transactions

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee in a colloquy on the ability of insurance companies to make investments that are treated as ``financial in nature'' under this legislation even though the investments are made in companies that are not engaged in financial activities. Am I correct that overlap between board members and officers of a financial holding company and a portfolio company in which an insurance company has an investment is not intended to result necessarily in a determination that the holding company routinely manages or operates the portfolio company? Or to state this intention another way, the existence of routine holding company management or operation is to be based upon an assessment of actual holding company involvement in day- to-day management and operations of the portfolio company, rather than board member or officer overlaps.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I also inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee whether I am also correct that the exception under which a holding company may routinely manage or operate a portfolio company when necessary or required to obtain a reasonable return on investment is intended to apply to an investment in a company that has been generating a below average rate of return on investment either at the time the holding company becomes a bank holding company or that generates a below average rate of return at a subsequent time?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman. section 502(d)

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin debate on the African trade bill at 9:30 a.m. Following 30 minutes of debate, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the Roth substitute amendment to the trade bill. Therefore, the first vote will occur at approximately 10 a.m. If cloture is not invoked on the trade bill, it is the majority leader's intention to move on to other legislative items. This trade bill has been the pending business for 1 week, as of tomorrow's date. One week is precious time when the end of a congressional session is near. The majority leader will, of course, notify the minority leader as to the next legislative item that he intends to bring up. The Senate may also begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the D.C./Labor-HHS bill, with the vote anticipated early next week.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was in New York on Monday to hold a hearing of the Y2K Committee when Senator Moynihan, a member of that committee, joined me. I greeted him with the normal good humor that we greet one of our colleagues, but he did not respond in good humor. Instead, he said to me: I have very sad news. I was a little surprised at that and asked him what was so significant as to cause him to be so downcast. He said: John Chafee died. That was very sad news, indeed. I was stunned, along with my colleague from New York, and had to reflect on how recently I had seen John Chafee, spoken with him, found him in good spirits, if not in good health. Indeed, I thought he was in good health. On Friday of last week, I was addressing a group of students from the State of Utah answering their questions about the Senate and Senate procedure and Senate life and was interested when I got a question that I often get from people outside of the political arena. It was: Tell us about life as a Senator. And specifically this question was: Tell us about the Senators. Then the questioner said: Tell us who your friends are. That is always an interesting question. You want to be careful about the answer because you do not want to offend anyone by leaving them out. But I said to that group on Friday: I have many friends in the Senate, but one of my closest friends is John Chafee. I put those two incidents over the weekend together. On Friday, I am citing the name of John Chafee as one of my closest friends, and on Monday, one of my other friends in this body tells me of John's passing. I have waited until now to take the floor to pay tribute to John Chafee, partly because of the press of business and partly because I was afraid I could not keep my composure. Those who know me well know my emotions sometimes run very close to the surface. I get dewy-eyed at the dedication of a parking lot. For that reason, an occasion such as this one can be a difficult one. At the same time, however, I want to look at the death of John Chafee from a slightly different perspective. We mourn his passing. We become emotional at the thought of his loss. But we should recognize in many ways this is a time for rejoicing. I have had the experience, along with many others, of dealing with aging parents. My father was 95, my mother 96, when they passed away-- neither one of them in good health. My mother dealt with an aging parent in her lifetime, a father who had a stroke and then lingered for a number of years thereafter. Mother used to say to us: If I'm killed in an automobile accident, rejoice. I don't look forward to going through old age. When people retire, very often they go downhill rapidly. John showed no signs of that, but his health was failing. He had been in the hospital for a back problem. He was not an old man by my standards. Seventy-seven seems increasingly younger as I get closer to it myself. But I think of the possibility of John Chafee running downhill in old age. I think we might rejoice that he was spared that. John Chafee left at the top of his game, at the top of his form. He was a Senator's Senator. He was involved in everything. We did not vote together very often, but when we did, he was always grateful; and when we did not, he was always understanding. I never had an occasion where John Chafee was disapproving. We stood together on one issue where we were two of four Republicans--one of the occasions where we crossed the line; John did that more often than I--to join with a group of Democrats. That was the flag amendment. John and I both had great reverence for the flag of the United States, but we felt our reverence for the Constitution outweighed that and that the Constitution should not be amended to deal with a nonexistent problem because flag burning is no longer going on in the United States, except by those who want to goad us into attempting to amend the Constitution. At least that is the way I saw it and that is the way John saw it. He was always friendly and supportive when we had those kinds of problems. The thing I will remember the most about John Chafee, as a Senator's Senator, was the way he would go after problems and not people, the way he would tackle challenges and not the challengers, the way he would maintain a constant good humor, even in the face of difficulties within his own party or difficulties from across the aisle. It is a time for rejoicing, rejoicing because we had the privilege of dealing with this man, right up to the end of his life, and then seeing him spared the long good-bye that we are seeing in others--Ronald Reagan, for example. I think if John Chafee were given the choice, he would take the choice the Good Lord has given him rather than lingering on in some crippled fashion. He had a weak heart, weaker than any of us knew. The possibility of that kind of situation was perhaps there, but I am following the advice of my mother, who, looking at the possibility of an old age, said: If I'm taken suddenly, don't mourn. Rejoice. There is very little I think we can add to the accomplishments of John Chafee's life. We can rejoice that we knew him, served with him, and we were with him right up to the moment where he left, as I say, at the top of his game. I extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to his family. I have met both his wife and his son. I know what fine people they are. I know how desperately they feel this loss.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 29. I further ask consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders on H.R. 434, the African trade bill. I further ask consent that the cloture vote occur at 10 a.m. on Friday.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the following document, written by one of my constituents, Mr. Terry Harris. The People's Creed, which Mr. Harris hopes will serve as a tool to those learning about the U.S. Constitution, is on display this week in the Utah State Capitol. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The material follows: The People's Creed (By Terry Harris) The People's Creed, set forth in the United States of America, for the people of the United States of America and all those who desire and respect liberty, freedom, justice and the pursuit of happiness; on Sunday the fourth of July nineteen hundred and ninety-nine. For this creed was written with the intention to include Every Woman, Man and Child regardless of his or her race, content or creed, For we are all the people of the United States of America. For together we stand proud as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We the people of the United States of America (every woman, man and child/all nationalities to be included), share a foundation bound by democracy, freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This foundation has caused us to be united as one nation under God. We the people of the United States of America have been blessed and recognized with freedom of speech and of the press. We the people of the United States of America understand that freedom has a price, and we must maintain that which was set forth by the founding fathers of this great country and by those who have paid the ultimate price for freedom. We the people of the United States of America must respect the laws of this great nation, and when we find ourselves outside of this realm, must act swiftly to make necessary corrections. We the people of the United States are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. We the people of the United States of America are all subject to due process of law and equal protection of the law. We the people of the United States of America are protected against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. We the people of the United States retain all rights not specifically granted to the States or by the Constitution. We the people of the United States of America recognize that slavery is wrong and hereby denounce and abolish it. We the people of the United States of America (woman & man) have been granted the right to vote, regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude. We the people of the United States of America understand that this country may not be without faults, yet we will strive to do the best that we can to ensure the right to democracy, freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all to enjoy. We the people of the United States of America realize that this country is made up of different cultures, sexes beliefs and religions that may not necessarily be our own; however, we must respect and practice tolerance for one another. For it is diversity that serves as an important link which holds the foundation of this great country together. We the people of the United States of America hold at the very core of our foundation that democracy is vital and necessary for the people and by the people. For democracy must never be threatened by forces from within or without these United States of America. From the pages of the Magna Carta, to Puritan New England let liberty ring. From the Virginia House of Burgesses, to the Washington Monument let liberty ring. Let liberty ring from Williamsburg to Philadelphia. From the waters of the Delaware to the Golden Gate Bridge, let liberty ring. From the sparkling, sandy beaches of Miami to Stone Mountain Georgia, let liberty ring. From the green pastures of New Hampshire, to the deserts of Arizona, let liberty ring. From Alabama to Alaska, let liberty ring. From the Oregon forests to the New Mexico desert, let liberty ring. From the flat lands of Indiana, to the farm lands of Arkansas, let liberty ring. From the Colorado Rocky Mountains to the clear Connecticut waters, let liberty ring. From Seattle to Independence Hall, let liberty ring. From the Florida Atlantic to the shores of Hawaii, let liberty ring. From Stone Mountain Georgia to Mt. Rushmore, let liberty ring. From the Iowa Woodlands to the mighty Missouri River, let liberty ring. From the Bluegrass Heartlands of Kentucky, to the Flint Hills of Kansas, let liberty ring. From the potato fields of Idaho, to the dairy lands of Iowa, let liberty ring. From the golden country side of Kansas to Bourbon Street, let liberty ring Let Liberty ring from Freedom Trail Boston to Old town Alexandria. From the cold waters of Maine to the green Montana mountains let liberty ring. From the great lakes of Michigan to the mighty Mississippi River, let liberty ring From Historic New Jersey to the Statue of Liberty let liberty ring. From the sandy mountains of New Mexico to the Alamo, let liberty ring Let Liberty ring from Industry, Ohio to the steel mills of Pittsburgh. From the banks of Rhode Island to the historic Carolinas let liberty ring. From Baltimore's inner harbors to Minnesota's Thousand lakes, let liberty ring. From the subtly colored sandstones of Wisconsin to Mustang, Wyoming, let liberty ring. Let liberty ring out from Apollo 13 to the Space Shuttle. From the heart of Rock-n-roll to the soul of Jazz, let liberty ring. My Country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty; of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of every one's pride, from every mountain side let liberty ring. For I am proud to be an American. I will do my best to give my fellow American my honor and my respect. When my fellow American is in need of a helping hand, it is I who must reach out. For it is I who must respect nature that God has placed for all to enjoy, for we must live with nature as one. May the mercy of liberty, democracy, freedom and the pursuit of happiness echo throughout the world, making this land yours and mine for generations to come. May God have mercy upon the United States of America and all that lie within.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Before the Senator from Idaho yields the floor, will he yield to a question?

Mr. BENNETT. I have never been in one, but I am at least told that is the way it works. Let me ask the Senator from Idaho, as a member of the leadership, you know other Members of the Republican Party. Do you know of any Member, on this side of the aisle, who would change his or her position on labor issues if the AFL-CIO were to suddenly put $1 million worth of soft money into his or her State party?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, may I add to the request that Senator Bennett be recognized after Senator McCain.

Mr. BENNETT. I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Senator if he is saying that this is the only source of access and that only those who give have access?

Mr. BENNETT. When I was on the committee with the Senator, we were debating this issue. I said the best way to get access to me is to be registered to vote in the State of Utah. Then I asked the Senator from Michigan, is that the same thing for himself--that he pays more attention to constituents from Michigan than he does to contributors who come from outside the State.

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

Mr. BENNETT. I will confess, this whole question of the appearance of corruption bothers me a very great deal. I do not know that the drafters of the first amendment talked about the appearance of free speech or the appearance of a vigorous political debate. So I ask the Senator this question. Hypothetically, if the Senator from Michigan were to meet with the head of the United Auto Workers on a Monday, in advance of casting a vote on the union's position on the following Tuesday, and vote in favor of the union's position within 24 hours of that meeting, and then on the following Wednesday, within another 24 hours, the union made a very large soft money contribution to the Democratic National Committee--in the opinion of the Senator from Michigan, A, would that be the appearance of corruption; and, B, would that be something he would seek to ban in the name of appearance of corruption?

Mr. BENNETT. Let us assume the Senator from Michigan did not solicit; that the solicitation came from the Senator from New Jersey in his position--changing it, therefore, from the Democratic National Committee to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the solicitation came from the Senator from New Jersey in his posture as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity. I have been following this debate and, indeed, have been involved in it with great interest ever since it began. While I appreciate and, indeed, salute the sincerity with which the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin pursue their efforts to achieve what they sincerely believe will be good for our country, I must begin by stating that I am absolutely convinced that what they are pursuing would be bad for our country, would be bad for our political system, would be bad for campaigns in general, and would raise, rather than lower, the sense of frustration and disgust with the political system overall. That has been the history of campaign finance reform. It has gone on in this town for decades. Every time, the reformers end up making things worse. I say that with all respect for the sincerity with which they pursue their goal. But, in my opinion, the goal they are pursuing is not available to them through the route they are following. I wish to begin by quoting a column that appeared last week in the Washington Post written by Robert Samuelson. Robert Samuelson is not known as one of the more partisan of the political commentators. He is basically considered an objective commentator, spending more of his time on economics than other issues. But what he has to say about this issue captures what I believe about it so well that I am going to quote him at some length. He says: Few subjects inspire more intellectual conformity than ``campaign finance reform.'' All ``right-thinking'' people ``know'' that election spending is ``out of control,'' that the present system of campaign finance is corrupt and that only reactionaries block ``reform.'' I think that captures exactly what we have been hearing on the floor--that all ``right-thinking'' people ``know'' that election spending is out of control and the present system is corrupt and only reactionaries block ``reform''. Then he goes on: Who cares if these common beliefs are either wrong or wildly exaggerated--or that most ``reforms'' would do more damage to democracy than any harm they might cure? The case against ``reform'' is almost impossible to make, because people's minds are closed. That beginning of Mr. Samuelson's column, as I say, perfectly captures how I feel about this issue. Here is the history--again, in previous debates, I have gone through the history at some length. Mr. Samuelson summarized well: The history of ``campaign finance reform'' is that every limit inspires new evasions. One possibility is that interest groups will finance more independent campaigns . . . to elect or defeat targeted candidates. ``Reformers'' view such ``issue ads'' . . . as shams. And so, the next step would be to curb such advertising, even if curbs flout the First Amendment. Mr. Samuelson then goes on with this very insightful quote from one of the reform groups that summarizes how this debate has crystallized: ``Any effort to reform issue advocacy spending in connection with federal elections must strike a regulatory balance between protecting political speech and protecting the integrity of our electoral process,'' says one reform group. Well, as Mr. Samuelson says: The First Amendment says that ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.'' There's no mention [in the First Amendment] of ``regulatory balance.'' And if elections and ``issue ads'' aren't about political speech, what are they about? ``Right thinking'' people minimize the conflict between ``campaign finance reform'' and free speech, because it is inconvenient. Then Mr. Samuelson summarizes, and I think, again, this is the ultimate summary of the debate: As long as we have the First Amendment, the effort to regulate elections--under the guise of ``campaign finance reform''--is futile, self-defeating, and undesirable. The hysteria about money's corrupting power worsens the very problem that reformers claim to deplore: public cynicism. But right-thinking people are oblivious to evidence or logic. They are at ease with their own respectable conformity. I could not have done it better, so I didn't try. That is why I quoted it at that length. Let's go to the debate for a minute. By the way, I ask that I be informed when I have 5 minutes left.

Mr. BENNETT. Nor in mine. But the fact is, there is a chain of events.

Mr. BENNETT. I was very interested in a comment about the money being raised by the AFL-CIO. I would like to get the exact figure. Did the Senator say $49 million?