Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT. I will yield for a response to my question. If it means yielding the floor, I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to respond. If I were convinced the legislation before us would achieve the result that is claimed for it, I would vote for it happily. My concern with the legislation before us is that it, in fact, would make things worse rather than better. We can discuss that and those details at an appropriate point in the debate. I don't want to dodge it because I think the point the Senator from New York is making is a legitimate one, and his logic is, indeed, inexorable. The one hole I see in it is his assumption that this bill before us would work. My conviction, after reading it carefully, is that it not only would not work but would do serious damage to our first amendment rights. I come back to the fundamental question we are dealing with in terms of the spirit of this debate and the spirit in which it is cast. This debate is being cast in the national press and over the Internet and, indeed, in the Presidential campaign as a debate between the incorrupt and the corrupt. I have been labeled as being on the side of the corrupt, and I don't like it. If I am, I want to be identified in such a way that makes it clear that I am, instead of in a broad brush kind of way. One of the things we all try to avoid is tarring people with broad brushes. This is not a broad brush. This is a specific charge that then is drawn over into the broad brush of ``we are all corrupt.'' I want to know from whom did the money come, how much was it, and to what organization did it go that caused me to take the action I took. In the absence of being able to produce those statistics, I think the charge that I am corrupt should be withdrawn. That is what I am saying. That is what I am going to continue to say as a matter of personal privilege until we get this thing resolved. It has nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of funding for the Olympics on the Federal level. It is a question of my position, of personal integrity, that, in my view, has been impugned on a web site available to the entire country.

Mr. BENNETT. Two and then three.

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the Senator from Arizona to respond if he wishes.

Mr. BENNETT. I am holding a copy of the web site in which the Senator from Arizona is quoted as follows: In the last several years, while Republicans controlled Congress, special interest earmarks in appropriations bills have dramatically increased. The rise in pork barrel spending is directly related to the rise of soft money, as Republicans and Democrats scramble to reward major donors to our campaigns. Immediately adjacent to that statement, as an example which ``will give you an idea of what laced this most recent trichinosis attack,'' again a direct quote from the web site: . . . $2.2 million for sewer infrastructure needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. I plead guilty. I am the Senator who approached the Appropriations Committee to ask for that earmark. I ask the Senator from Arizona if he can identify for me from the words he has used in the web site, ``the rise of soft money'' that came to me that caused me to approach the Appropriations Committee to ask for that money; specifically, I am going to ask the Senator from Arizona to identify the source of the money, the amount of the money, the recipient of the money that produced that which he describes on his web site as a direct result of, presumably, the money that was received.

Mr. BENNETT. At some future point, Mr. President, I shall be happy to debate the appropriateness of Olympic appropriations with the Senator from Arizona. That was not my question. The Senator from Arizona has not answered my question. And Elizabeth Drew is not capable of answering my question because Elizabeth Drew did not make the accusation. The accusation is made on the web site ``It's YOUR Country.com'': ``The rise in pork barrel spending is directly related to the rise of soft money.'' And one example of that is the $2.2 million appropriation for sewer and infrastructure associated with the Winter Olympics. My question to the Senator from Arizona was--and remains--not, is the appropriation for the Olympics appropriate or not? My question for the Senator from Arizona is, who gave the soft money? How much was it? And where did it go that resulted in my actions being taken? Now, let me point out that it is possible to answer those questions with respect to corruption. I sat as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee that examined what happened in the 1996 election. I will give you three examples that I want to apply to this context. Then if the Senator from Arizona will give me an answer, I will yield to him for an answer to my question. Example No. 1: Who gave the money? is the question. The answer is: Roger Tamraz, a fugitive from justice from many countries in the world. Second question: How much? $300,000. Third question: To whom? The Democratic National Committee. Fourth question: What did he get for it? The answer is he got invited to the White House, a dinner with the President and a conversation with the President, that which is facetiously referred to as ``face time,'' despite the fact that the National Security Council told the White House that Roger Tamraz should not be allowed in the White House because of his background. There are the four elements: Who gave the money? How much was it? Where did it go? And what was the quid pro quo? All four are identifiable. I would be willing to say that constitutes corruption. Roger Tamraz gave $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee to earn entry into the White House and ``face time'' with the President, in spite of the warning by the National Security Council that he should not do that. Example No. 2. The Riady family. Who gave the money? The Riady family. They were the largest single contributor to the Clinton campaign in the 1992 election. How much? I don't have that total. It was in the millions. To whom was it given? Soft money. It went to the Democratic National Committee. What was the quid pro quo? The quid pro quo was the placing of John Huang in the Commerce Department where he could become, in the words of the Riadys--of James Riady--``My man in the U.S. Government.'' There are the four elements: Who gave the money? The Riadys. How much was it? In the millions. Where did it go? The Democratic National Committee. And what did they get? An appointment of their individual buried inside the administration. No. 3, not quite as clear, but nonetheless the four elements are there. The Indian tribe that was approached by the Democratic National Committee, an Indian tribe that was one of the most impoverished in the United States. What did they want? They wanted the return of what they considered to be ancestral lands. They were told, if they gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic National Committee, they would receive the lands that had been taken away from them decades prior. They raised the money. Where did the money come from? It came from the Indian tribes. How much was it? It was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where did it go? It went to the Democratic National Committee. What did they get for it? In fact, they got nothing because the administration was unable to return the lands. That was the case of a scam, in my opinion, that is corrupt. So I come back to this question to the Senator from Arizona, or anyone else who can answer it: With respect to the $2 million that was appropriated for sewer infrastructure in Utah, I want to know, who gave the money? How much was it? Where did it go? And where was the quid pro quo that I delivered on? I am unaware of any money that was given by anybody in any amounts that influenced my action here. But I have been accused on a web site, for the entire world to see, of caving into soft money. I have been accused of being corrupt. I have been accused of doing something in this body solely because--and I quote--``The rise in pork barrel spending is directly related to the rise of soft money.'' As I say, I will engage in a debate over the wisdom of Federal support for the Olympics in another time and in another venue. The issue has nothing to do with that question. The issue is whether or not a Member of the Senate, when he is accused of corruption, has a right to know the details of the corruption; whether a Member of the Senate has the right to know, when his young people are told by one of his colleagues that he is corrupt and, therefore, the young people in his State may be discouraged from running for public office or may feel ill about the system, because they are told their Senator is corrupt, he has the right to know the details of that corruption accusation. I believe that is a fundamental right of every Member of this body. I am asking the Senator from Arizona to answer those questions: Who gave the money? How much was it? Where did it go? How did it affect my actions with respect to the Appropriations Committee? I am prepared to yield to the Senator from Arizona for an answer to that, if he wants to do it now, or I will give him a chance to research it, if he prefers. It has nothing to do, in my view, with Elizabeth Drew or with actions within the Appropriations Committee so much as it has to do with the accusation that has been made about me personally, to which I take personal offense.

Mr. BENNETT. May I respond?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, October 14, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Conquering Diabetes: Are We Taking Full Advantage of the Scientific Opportunities For Research?.''

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 14, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman for the clarification, and for his efforts to address military health issues.

Mr. BENNETT. One of the projects listed is digital mammography technology development. Advancing second generation imaging technology has the potential of increasing efficiency, reliability and lower costs, but would not be considered basic research. However, it seems appropriate that this type of project be reviewed. Is it the intent of the committee that this type of research and development program be included in the selection process?

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there has been some uncertainty in my state about the continuation of Star School grants. For my colleagues who are not familiar with Star Schools, it is a grant program that has helped distance learning move forward in many parts of the country. The beneficiaries in my state include many students in the San Juan school district, a small, rural, and remote school district in southeastern Utah. Many Star School grants have been awarded to the winners of a competition. Often these grants are multi-year grants. Some recipients are fearful about losing funding for the continuation of their grants if new projects are funded. Is it the intent of the chairman that continuing grants will receive a high priority in funding allocations?

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman for clarifying his intent, and for his efforts to provide adequate funding for these projects. heartland manor

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. 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 was sad to learn of the death of Mrs. Eva Israelsen of North Logan, Utah this past week. As one of Cache Valley's oldest living residents, she was a remarkable woman. Eva May Butler Israelsen was born October 5, 1894, in Butlerville, Utah. She attended Butlerville School as a young girl. A diligent student throughout her life, she was Valedictorian of the first graduating class of Jordan High School in 1915. I find it remarkable that just nine years ago, she and the other surviving class member, Thomas J. Parmley celebrated their 75th class reunion. In 1991 she was invited to be the featured speaker at Jordan High School's graduation. She attended the Utah Agricultural College (now Utah State University) where she met her husband Victor Eugene Israelsen. They were married in the Salt Lake LDS Temple in 1917. After college, she and her husband farmed, eventually establishing the North Logan Buttercup Dairy where she lived for 63 years. That dairy became a landmark in Cache Valley. Eva was known throughout Cache Valley simply as ``Grandma Israelsen.'' She kept numerous journals and granted countless interviews to young people in the community who sought her out for her perspective and historical knowledge. She remained active in her community and her church throughout her life. With support from her children, she attended nearly every funeral, wedding and baby blessing in the community. She was active in the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers and blessed the lives of her neighbors through her charitable example and her Christian life. Grandma Israelsen had a remarkable memory, often recalling details about not only her own family members and grandchildren but of the families of her neighbors and acquaintances. It was common for her to ask her neighbors about their children by name, even though she may not have seen them for years. The residents of North Logan will miss that, just as they miss waiving to her on her morning walks which she used to take back when she was a young woman of just 101. She and her husband had eleven children, eight of which are living. Her husband Victor passed away in 1967. Her progeny includes 67 grandchildren, 271 great-grandchildren and 40 great-great grandchildren. Including the 97 spouses, she is survived by 483 family members. Grandma Israelsen would have been 105 years old today. So on her birthday, I want to pay tribute to her life and express my condolences to her family on her passing. She was a remarkable woman who led a remarkable life. Sophocles once said ``One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.'' In her passing, I am sure that the community agrees that it was indeed splendid to spend the day with Eva Israelsen.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the actions taken by the Commerce Committee and in particular, Chairman McCain, in crafting provisions that will allow exemptions to the current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Mr. Chairman, I commend you 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. These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule 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, our 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 improved 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 provision 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 award 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. I commend the Chairman and his colleagues on the Commerce Committee 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 ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent to Chairman McCain on this matter signed by seven western Senators.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the pending amendments to the FAA bill at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. It is hoped those amendments can be debated and disposed of by midmorning so Senators that have amendments can work with the bill managers on a time to offer their amendments. Senators should be aware that rollcall votes are possible Tuesday prior to the 12:30 recess. By previous consent, first-degree amendments to the bill must be filed by 10 a.m. tomorrow. It is the intention of the bill managers to complete action on the bill by tomorrow evening. As a reminder, there will be three stacked votes on nominations at 2:15 tomorrow.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, 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.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama has asked for 5 minutes. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to.

Mr. BENNETT. I accede to the unanimous consent request for 7 additional minutes, not coming off our time.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield an additional 2 or 3 minutes to the Senator from California so she may finish her statement.