Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to table the Kerry amendment, with the vote to occur at 6, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Connecticut may have an objection.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be set aside for 5 minutes.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, under the previous order, I understand now that Senator Edwards will be recognized.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999. This legislation would authorize additional funds for lupus research and grants for state and local governments to support the delivery of essential services to low- income individuals with lupus and their families. The National Institute of Health (NIH) spent about $42 million less than one half of one percent of its budget on lupus research last year. I believe that we need to increase the funds that are available for research of this debilitating disease. Lupus is not a well-known disease, nor is it well understood. Yet, at least 1,400,000 Americans have been diagnosed with lupus and many more are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. More Americans have lupus than AIDS, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Lupus is a disease that attacks and weakens the immune system and is often life-threatening. Lupus is nine times more likely to affect women than men. African-American women are diagnosed with lupus two to three times more often than Caucasian women. Lupus is also more prevalent among certain minority groups including Latinos, Native Americans and Asians. Because lupus is not well understood, it is difficult to diagnose, leading to uncertainty on the actual number of patients suffering from lupus. The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed early and with proper treatment, the majority of lupus cases can be controlled. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties in diagnosing lupus and inadequate research, many lupus patients suffer debilitating pain and fatigue. The resulting effects make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals suffering from lupus to carry on normal everyday activities including the demands of a job. Thousands of these debilitating cases needlessly end in death each year. Title I of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999 authorizes $75 million in grants starting in fiscal year 2000 to be earmarked for lupus research at NIH. This new authorization would amount to less than one half of one percent of NIH's total budget but would greatly enhance NIH's research. Title II of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999 authorizes $40 million in grants to state and local governments as well as to nonprofit organizations starting in fiscal year 2000. These funds would support the delivery of essential services to low-income individuals with lupus and their families. I would urge all my colleagues, Mr. President, to join Senator Murray, Senator Torricelli, Senator Schumer, and myself in sponsoring this legislation to increase funding to fight lupus.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999. This legislation would authorize additional funds for lupus research and grants for state and local governments to support the delivery of essential services to low- income individuals with lupus and their families. The National Institute of Health (NIH) spent about $42 million less than one half of one percent of its budget on lupus research last year. I believe that we need to increase the funds that are available for research of this debilitating disease. Lupus is not a well-known disease, nor is it well understood. Yet, at least 1,400,000 Americans have been diagnosed with lupus and many more are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. More Americans have lupus than AIDS, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Lupus is a disease that attacks and weakens the immune system and is often life-threatening. Lupus is nine times more likely to affect women than men. African-American women are diagnosed with lupus two to three times more often than Caucasian women. Lupus is also more prevalent among certain minority groups including Latinos, Native Americans and Asians. Because lupus is not well understood, it is difficult to diagnose, leading to uncertainty on the actual number of patients suffering from lupus. The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed early and with proper treatment, the majority of lupus cases can be controlled. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties in diagnosing lupus and inadequate research, many lupus patients suffer debilitating pain and fatigue. The resulting effects make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals suffering from lupus to carry on normal everyday activities including the demands of a job. Thousands of these debilitating cases needlessly end in death each year. Title I of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999 authorizes $75 million in grants starting in fiscal year 2000 to be earmarked for lupus research at NIH. This new authorization would amount to less than one half of one percent of NIH's total budget but would greatly enhance NIH's research. Title II of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999 authorizes $40 million in grants to state and local governments as well as to nonprofit organizations starting in fiscal year 2000. These funds would support the delivery of essential services to low-income individuals with lupus and their families. I would urge all my colleagues, Mr. President, to join Senator Murray, Senator Torricelli, Senator Schumer, and myself in sponsoring this legislation to increase funding to fight lupus.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to call for a suspension of the bombing in Kosovo, not because of anything Milosevic has done, such as the release of three American servicemen; not because of differing opinions within NATO, such as those currently being expressed by the Italians and the Germans; not because of the inadvertent damage done to accidental targets, such as the Chinese Embassy; and not because of any personal animus or distrust of any individuals in this administration. No; I oppose continuation of the bombing in Kosovo because it has not worked. It is not working and shows no signs of working in the future. The bombing has been of no help to the Kosovars, hundreds of thousands of whom have lost their homes, their neighbors, their children and perhaps even their lives while the bombing has gone on. It has been of no help to the Albanians or the Macedonians who have seen hundreds of thousands of refugees flood cross the borders into their ill-equipped countries. It has been of no help to NATO, an alliance that has seen its military stocks drawn down to dangerously low levels with no effect on the atrocities going on in the killing fields. And the bombing has been of no help to our relationships with nations outside of NATO, particularly Russia and China, who have vigorously opposed our decision to proceed. Again, in short, the bombing has not worked, even though we have persisted for a longer time than we bombed in Desert Storm. My call for suspending the bombing comes from the modern wisdom that says: If at first you don't succeed, try something else. There are those, including my colleagues on the Senate floor, commentators and columnists for whom I have the utmost respect, who say we cannot even consider suspension of the bombing. We are at war, they say; we must press on to victory. Anything else would be dishonorable, and on a practical geopolitical level, would send the wrong signal to others who might choose to confront us in the future. Such language is often called Churchillian, echoing the electrifying rhetoric of the indomitable prime minister speaking in the darkest days of World War II. No one has a higher regard for the magnificent rhetoric and the deeds of Winston Churchill than I, but, to me, the mantra, ``Because we're in, we have to win,'' is more suitable for a bumper sticker than it is for Winston Churchill. Let me take you to a Churchillian episode that I think applies here, and it comes not from the darkest days of World War II but World War I. Those who remember their history will remember that Winston Churchill fell into great disregard during World War I as a result of his sponsorship of the Dardanelles operation. He was removed from any position of responsibility. But because he was still an officer in the British Army, he agreed, indeed sought for, the opportunity to go to the front in France. And so, as Major Churchill, he went to the front, and unlike most British officers of the time, he really went to the front. He went all the way to the front lines and saw for himself over a period of time the horrors and the futility of trench warfare. He saw it firsthand, and he came away convinced that it was not working. When he returned to England, he became Minister of Munitions and put his full support and strength behind searching for an alternative. If you will, he put aside the patriotic rhetoric of his time and sought for a policy that would work. William Manchester, in his biography of Churchill called the ``Last Line,'' refers to Churchill as the father of the tank. It was Winston Churchill who caught the vision of the fact that you could do something different and created the modern tank, or created the prototype of what became the modern tank, and revolutionized warfare, eliminating the failures of trench warfare. If at first you don't succeed, try something else. The legacy of Winston Churchill was that he was willing to try something else when he saw the reality of the failure on the ground. I think, frankly, that is the Churchillian example we should seek to follow now: Suspend the bombing and try something else. There are many suggestions on the table. The one, of course, we hear the most these days is send in the ground troops. To those who urge this, I ask, as I asked when the bombing was proposed in the first place: Will it work? Will it accomplish our goals? And with that question, we get the next obvious question: What are our goals? When Secretary Madeleine Albright made the case for the bombing to the Senators in the Capitol, she told us if we did not bomb, the following would happen: First, there would be brutal atrocities and ethnic cleansing throughout all of Kosovo with tens of thousands of people being slaughtered and hundreds of thousands driven from their homes. Second, she said there will be a flood of refugees across the borders into neighboring countries, swamping their already fragile economies. Third, she said there will be splits within NATO. This alliance will be torn apart by disagreements. And finally, she said Milosevic will strengthen his hand on his local political situation. That was 8 weeks ago. Now, 8 weeks later, the bombing has failed to prevent any of those results. All four of them have taken place--the ethnic cleansing and the brutality and the atrocities have gone on; the refugees have appeared across the borders; NATO is split with arguments going on among its top leaders; and Milosevic has been strengthened as the leader, martyr, hero, if you will, of the Yugoslavs. We have not achieved a single goal that the bombing set out to accomplish. I come back to the same question: What are our new goals? As best I can understand them, from the various statements that have been made, one list of the new goals would be as follows: No. 1, removal of all Serbian influence in Kosovo; No. 2, a return of the Kosovars physically to their land; No. 3, a rebuilding of their homes and villages; and No. 4, an international police force in there for an indefinitely long period of time to guarantee that their homes will always be protected. Let us accept those goals for just a moment. I ask the same fundamental question I asked in the beginning with respect to bombing. Will it work? Will continuation of the bombing achieve these four new goals when it did not achieve the four old ones? And what about ground troops? Will ground troops achieve these new goals? On the first question, as to whether the continuation of the bombing will achieve these new goals, there is disagreement from the experts. In this morning's Washington Post, General Short says: ``Yes, we will see the achievement of these goals within a matter of months.'' Last Friday, the Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon said, ``No, there was no indication that bombing would achieve the goals.'' I ask this fundamental humanitarian question: Do we have to continue to destroy the economy of Yugoslavia, depriving the civilian population of power and water, as we did over the weekend, raising the specter of the epidemic spread of typhoid while we decide who is right, while we decide which opinion is the correct one? Can we not suspend the bombing while that debate goes on? With respect to ground troops, and those who say ground troops are the only answer, those who are calling for an invasion and an indefinitely long occupation of part of Serbia, that part known as Kosovo, to them I would refer the words of Daniel Ellsberg that appeared in the New York Times last Friday. I find them chilling. I would like to read them now at some length. I cannot paraphrase them and put them in any better form than Mr. Ellsberg himself. He says, referring to a ground invasion in Kosovo: . . . I believe, it would be a death sentence for most Albanians remaining in Kosovo. By all accounts, it would take weeks to months to deploy an invasion force to the region once the decision to do so was made, and Slobodan Milosevic already has troops there fortifying the borders. Wouldn't the prospect of an invasion lead him to order his forces in Kosovo to kill all the military-age male Albanians and hold the rest of the population as hostages rather than continuing to deport them? A very, very important question. Daniel Ellsberg goes on: We don't know how many male Kosovars of military age-- broadly, [those] from 15 to 60 years old--have been killed already. He says: But even if the number is in the tens of thousands . . . that would mean that most of the men were still alive. Facing invasion, would Mr. Milosevic allow any more men to leave Kosovo to be recruited by the K.L.A., or to live to support the invasion? The Serbs could quickly slaughter 100,000 to 200,000 male Kosovars. (In Rwanda five years ago, an average of 8,000 civilians a day were killed for 100 days, mostly with machetes.) Obviously, Mr. Milosevic and his subordinates are brutal enough to do that. If they haven't done it already (and there is no testimony [to suggest] that they have on that scale) it may well be because they fear that such an annihilation would make an invasion inevitable. A commitment now to ground invasion would remove that deterrent, just as the commitment in March to begin bombing in support of an ultimatum and the consequent withdrawal of international monitors removed an implicit deterrent against sweeping ethnic cleansing and expulsion. As for to the remaining civilians in Kosovo-- women, children and old people--tens of thousands of them could be used against the invasion as human shields, in a way never before seen in warfare. Fighting in built-up areas, NATO troops would probably be fired on from buildings that were packed on every floor with Kosovar women and children. Using the traditional means-- explosives, artillery and rockets--to destroy those buildings would make NATO forces the mass executioners of the people we were fighting to protect. The column goes on. I shall not continue with it except to summarize the grim conclusion. Mr. Ellsberg says: . . . We bombed Vietnam for seven and a half years in pursuit of goals we refused to compromise and never secured. I find that a chilling summary in terms of some of the language we are hearing now: We must never compromise until our goals are secured. The first goals laid out were not secured. We now have a new set of goals and we are determined once again not to give in. When I first went into the briefing room to hear Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, National Security Adviser Berger, and General Shelton give us the justification for proceeding in this area, I went in with no preconceptions one way or the other. Contrary to assumptions that have been made in the press about those of us who voted against the bombing, I did not carry any impeachment baggage into that briefing. I have a history of backing President Clinton when I think he is right. I supported him on the recognition of Vietnam, on most favored nation status for China, on the Mexican peso bailout, on NATO expansion, on NAFTA and GATT and fast track, all to the discomfort of some of my constituents. I did so because I thought the President was right. And I went into that briefing very much capable of being convinced. But during the briefing, as I became more and more uneasy about what I was hearing, when it came my turn to speak, I said to Secretary Albright: Let me give you a little bit of history. I did that because she had quoted history to us, talking about the Balkans being the beginning of World War I and the battleground of World War II. And she said: If we don't act quickly enough, this will be the spark that sets off World War III. I did not choose to argue with her history. World War I did not begin because of a fight over the Balkans. While there were battles in World War II which occurred there, to be sure, the pivotal points in World War II were in places like North Africa, Stalingrad, Normandy, and Bastogne, not to mention, of course, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Leyte Gulf. No. I said to her: Madam Secretary, let me give you a little piece of history. This comes out of the Eisenhower administration, presided over by a military general who had achieved international fame for his strategic vision. This is when he was President. I said, ``A group of his advisers came to him to describe an international situation and to recommend a military solution. They laid out all of the military actions they wanted to take and then said, Mr. President, it will achieve these results.'' President Eisenhower listened very carefully and then asked: ``Are you willing to take the next step?'' They replied, ``What do you mean, Mr. President?'' He said, ``If this doesn't work, this first step that you have outlined, are you willing to take the next step?'' ``Oh, Mr. President,'' they said, ``the next step won't be necessary. There won't need to be any next steps. This first step will work.'' President Eisenhower asked again, ``You have not answered my question. Are you willing to take the next step?'' ``Well, let us explain to you, Mr. President, why the next---- He said, ``I accept your analysis that this will probably work. I accept your analysis that people will probably react in the way you are suggesting they will react. But I am asking you this question: `Are you willing to take the next step if the first one does not work?' And if the answer is `No', then don't take the first step.'' I asked, ``Madam Secretary, my question to you is, `Are you willing to take the next step?' If this doesn't work, what do we do?'' I got conversation, but I did not get an answer to my question. I came out of that briefing saying, unless I can get an answer to that question, I will vote against the bombing. I was not satisfied and I did vote against the bombing. I did not prevail in this Chamber. A majority of the Members voted in favor of the bombing, and so we have now had 8 weeks of it. That date has an interesting meaning for me, because in this conversation, in the briefing, they were asked, ``How long will it take for us to find out if this is going to work?'' We were told repeatedly, ``We can't tell you that. We don't know.'' Finally, in some frustration, I spoke out of turn and said to the briefer, ``How long would you be surprised if it were more than?'' I got kind of a dirty look and then grumpily the fellow said: ``8 weeks.'' Well, it has now been 8 weeks, and it hasn't worked, which is why I am here saying let's suspend the bombing while we talk about something that might. Let us stop destroying the economy of Yugoslavia while we talk about what might work in Kosovo, because our destruction of water works and television stations and power-generating plants in Belgrade has had no effect on the killing in Kosovo. Can't we stop killing civilians who are not involved in this while we talk about what our options might be? I think one of the most trenchant and insightful analyses of what happened to this country in Vietnam was written by Barbara Tuchman in a book called ``The March of Folly.'' In that book she described how people persist in going after solutions that do not work, because they do not want to admit that it won't work, and they are sure that if we just keep bombing a little bit longer, somehow something will work out. Shortly after I had my exchange with Secretary Albright, the President, President Clinton, was asked, ``What will you do if the bombing does not work?'' He was asked by the Prime Minister of Italy. According to the Washington Post, he looked startled at the question, then turned to National Security Advisor Sandy Berger for an answer. Mr. Berger gave him the answer, ``We will continue bombing.'' To me, that is folly. To me, that is not Churchillian. To me, that is not looking around to see what else might be there. I suggest, again, I call for a suspension of the bombing while we review our options, admit that the bombing hasn't worked and try to devise a new strategy that will. Perhaps there is none. After all of this analysis we may come to the conclusion there is nothing we can do now that the brutalities have taken place and the Kosovars have been driven from their homes. There may be nothing we can do effectively to restore them. For those who say how humiliating it would be for the United States to admit that, I ask this question, ``How humiliating will it be if we go forward and fail to achieve our goals? Wouldn't we have been better off in Vietnam if we had admitted that we were not getting it done long before the time came when that humiliating scene we all saw on our television screens of the helicopters above the Embassy in Saigon was broadcast throughout all the world?'' I voted for the supplemental bill that provided the military funds with respect to the operation in Kosovo. I did so because I lost the first debate. The bombing went on. The funds were spent. The President has exhausted all of the funds of the Department of Defense through the balance of this year, and it would be irresponsible, in my view, not to replenish those funds so the Defense Department can function now. I voted to replenish the funds that have already been spent. But I call on us to stop spending those funds now, while we undertake a comprehensive review of our strategy and address, once again, the fundamental question that was not answered in the beginning, and has not been answered so far, which is still, ``Will it work?'' I conclude by saying that the historic figure upon whom I called for the rationality of answering that question is Winston Churchill, the man who went to the front lines and saw that trench warfare was insanity and came back to become the father of the tank, who looked for another alternative. There must be something better than what is happening in Kosovo right now. Let us suspend the bombing and search for it. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I have an additional 5 minutes under my control, which I yield to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, 2 minutes is all I will need. In a perfect world, I would oppose the amendment with respect to the unitary thrift situation, but as the Senator from Texas has made clear, we do not live in a perfect theoretical world. We have existing institutions who have obligations to their shareholders and who have past history. However much I might like to see the past history be different, it is as it is. Under those circumstances, I think we cannot penalize people who have gone forward on assurances from the Federal Government and say that those assurances will not now be honored just because we do not think they should have been given in the first place. For that reason, Mr. President, I will be joining with the chairman of the committee and voting as he does on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. It addresses the CRA issue in what I hope is a noncontroversial way in that it calls for reporting of what happens to the CRA loans. Many of these loans are being made now with no regulation at all and no public understanding of what is happening. I, for example, asked a simple question as I went through the CRA debate. I said, What is the rate of default of CRA loans compared to non-CRA loans? And, specifically, what is the rate of default of those loans that are made through the advocacy groups that become loan brokers? I was told the rate of failure for CRA loans generally is about six or seven times higher than normal loans but there was no information as to the rate of default among those loans that were made through the advocacy groups that have become loan brokers. I think we are entitled to know that. This is simply a sunshine amendment that will report the facts. It does not change the regulatory situation in any way, it does not damage CRA in any way; it simply says the Congress will know what is happening with respect to CRA loans that are currently being made in the dark.

Mr. BENNETT. I have two amendments at the desk that I believe will be accepted by both sides after modification. I would like the opportunity to call those up before the final vote.

Mr. BENNETT. I will do that. Mr. LEVIN addressed Chair.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with some interest. I have enormous respect for members of the Banking Committee on which I have served since I came to the Senate. I know there is good intention on both sides of the issue, on both sides of the aisle. I echo the comments of the chairman of the committee in that much of the debate that I have heard has been focused on the wrong issue; that is, you would think that this was an attempt on the part of the majority in the committee to repeal CRA. I do not condone redlining. I recognize that the decision which was made by the Congress in 1977 to create CRA was motivated by a genuine abuse that required a genuine Federal fix. At the same time, I recognize also that under Secretary Rubin's leadership, attempts have been made to alleviate the regulatory burden of CRA, that there has been a recognition on the part of this administration--I think belatedly, but nonetheless I will accept it whenever I can get it--a recognition that CRA has gotten out of hand and has become, in some instances, a paperwork burden that is nonproductive and anticompetitive and puts an undue burden on places where it should not be. The question is not, Should we abolish CRA? The answer to that is clearly no. The question is not, Should we turn our backs on those people who have been benefited by CRA? The answer to that is no. The question is, Can we streamline CRA, as we are going through the process of modernizing our financial institutions, in a way that recognizes the reality of the marketplace? And there the answer is yes. One of the criticisms which has been made, and I think with some justification, is that a good part of the debate has been anecdotal; that is, one situation has been described, and we extrapolate from that, and then another has been described, and we extrapolate from that. I agree with those members of the committee who have suggested at some point it would be well for the committee to have hearings on the whole CRA matter and examine it at great detail. I think that is a salutary thing to do. But we have an opportunity here in this bill to take some steps which I consider to be relatively modest and relatively straightforward. The one I want to focus on is the exemption of CRA, the CRA requirement for institutions that have $100 million or less in aggregate assets. I want to share with the Senate the reaction of banks from my home State that have been contacted about this. And this is their information. This is not some professor at some university. This is the everyday banker doing business in the everyday community. And I will go beyond simply quoting the letters because I want to put it in context so you can understand the market. I have said around here before--and undoubtedly in the spirit of the Senate where there is no such thing as repetition--I will say, again, that if I could control what we engrave in the marble around here to remind us of our duty--not to denigrate the marvelous phrases that are here--I would have engraved in stone, at least in our committee rooms, the phrase: ``You cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.'' We try to do that continually in Congress. We try to think that markets do not matter, that governments are smarter than markets, that governments can make decisions that interfere with the law of supply and demand and produce beneficial results with no side effects. People have been trying to do that in government not only for centuries but for millennia. And they always fail. Here are the market realities with respect to CRA. I first quote from a letter of the Cache Valley Bank. No one in this Chamber knows where Cache Valley is; but I know where Cache Valley is. I have spent a lot of time there. My family has done business there. We have owned a business there. The president of the Cache Valley Bank says in his letter: Our community is a middle class farming community with a university. Most all of our customers are of modest income, small businesses and small farms. The rich professionals have gravitated to the local credit unions where they know they can get something for nothing. That last sentence indicates how he feels about the competitive impact of credit unions in Cache Valley. He says: We are chartered to serve our community. We have no business going outside our community. We live off the ability to say we are a hometown institution. Let me underscore that last sentence again. ``We live off the ability to say we are a hometown institution.'' In Cache Valley, there are branches of large banks, large banks that are located someplace else. There are, as an earlier somewhat sarcastic comment indicated, credit unions. They happen to be very large credit unions. We have some of the largest credit unions in the United States in Utah because of Utah's law. There is competition in Cache Valley for the banking customer. How does he deal with that competition? He says: My bank is . . . a $90 million institution operating from one office . . . One office--so he does not have branches around the city. The credit union does. He does not have the reach of advertising that the large banks which are there as his competition do. He has one office. And he makes his living advertising himself as a hometown institution. This, in marketing, is what is known as a marketing niche. He recognizes that he cannot compete with the big banks throughout the entire city. He recognizes that he has a particular niche in the market that he can fill, and he goes after it and he fills it. He says: We do what the CRA regulation intended us to do because it makes good sense. The documentation and time spent telling the regulators that that is what we do is just wasted by both us and the regulators. I have never had a customer come in and ask to see our CRA file. Then, with the optimism that comes from every small businessman, he says: As I will probably [pass] the $100 million proposed limit some day, I can see that not having to comply would give smaller institutions a slight advantage from costs they would save. The real issue is if the whole rule for community oriented institutions makes any sense. It doesn't and no one has provided any evidence that it does. He is not operating in a vacuum. He is not operating in a situation where there is no credit available to anybody else if he does not serve his niche. He is operating in a highly competitive situation, and yet he is examined as if he is the only institution, and he is looked at in terms of his lending to his market niche. All right. Let me go down the highway a little from Cache Valley to the First National Bank of Morgan. This is a smaller bank. This is a smaller community. The president of this bank says that they have $37 million in current assets. They serve a county, the population of which is approximately 7,000. In Utah, given our family size, a total population of 7,000 means that there are probably about 2,000 families there. I do not know how many of those are borrowers. This is a relatively small base for him to serve. Once again, while it is an isolated farming community, in today's modern world there is competition there. The big banks can go after his customers on the Internet if they want. They can open ATM stations or put branches there, if they want. There is a big bank just down the highway, within 20 miles of this small institution. How does he survive under these competitive conditions? He survives by serving the community. This is what he has to say: Exempting our institution from CRA requirements would allow bank personnel to spend more time with our customers in developing new products rather than gathering information to satisfy CRA documentation requirements. Competition is the greatest enforcer of CRA. The delivery of financial services is a highly competitive business. If my institution is not offering free checking or mortgage loans, then my competitor down the road will be taking advantage of my financial institution's shortcomings. I think he is absolutely right. In today's competitive world, you do not operate in a vacuum. If he wasn't doing his job, even though he is in a small, rural community, with Internet banking and advertising over television, the large institutions would come in. It is interesting, again, referring to Utah's somewhat unique situation, in many communities where the local bank was perceived as having something of a monopoly or a free ride in the community because of the physical isolation, it was not another bank that came in to offer competition; it was a credit union, operating under Utah's credit union laws. The competition produced the kinds of challenges that competition always produces. Once again, you cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. If there was demand in that community that was not being met by the local institution, competition came in and met it. Now, a little further down the highway, I want to refer to the Frontier Bank of Park City. Here the president of the bank says: As president of a nonmetropolitan community bank, I am of the opinion that existing CRA regulations are largely superfluous for both my institution and its direct competitors. The fact remains that we have and will continue to lend to all segments of our community because it is good business, not because it has been defined by regulation. Additionally, the time spent documenting our community lending efforts for regulatory purposes is in itself counterproductive as we could instead redirect our energies towards additional lending and community development activities. An interesting quote, Mr. President. He feels that CRA gets in the way of community developing activities that he would otherwise engage in. When I first went on the Banking Committee, some 6 years ago, I had never heard of the CRA. I heard at that time institutions coming in and complaining that the CRA documentation burden was overwhelming and that CRA had become more of a documentation issue than it had been a lending issue, that if they could fill out the documents in such a way as to satisfy the regulators, it didn't matter what their lending practices were. We had some testimony--I can't go back and put my hand on it now-- that made it clear that CRA was failing in its purpose to produce a meaningful impact for those in need in communities where they were not getting served. I am hoping that the reforms established by Secretary Rubin have begun to lift that burden and change that situation, but I am satisfied now that we have enough evidence that indicates that the vast majority of small banks with capitalization under $100 million are spending their time on CRA, filling out documents and meeting with regulators, spending their time performing the bureaucratic chores necessary to file a report, where they could be spending their time better serving their communities. Therefore, I will vote to see to it that the language that was adopted in the committee report remains there. I will oppose the Bryan amendment.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BENNETT. I want to answer some of the things the Senator has been saying here and ask him a question in that context. The Senator has asked the question, why we are taking this up, and why does it matter, and is there any urgency. My question to the Senator is, is he aware of the fact that Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve system, both testified before the Senate Banking Committee that this legislation was of the highest urgency and that if it did not pass as quickly as possible, the entire banking system of the United States would be adversely affected by virtue of foreign competition? Is the Senator aware of that testimony from the administration and the Federal Reserve Board?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the presentation by my friend from Minnesota. I return his friendship, and he is my friend. We disagree on just about everything, and we disagree about most of the things he said here today. I want to make a few comments about some of the positions he has taken before I talk about the bill. As I listened to the Senator run down the litany of things he thinks we ought to solve with legislation--we ought to solve farm prices with legislation; we ought to solve preparation for school with legislation; we ought to solve education, generally, with legislation; we ought to solve the amount of money people earn with legislation, and on down the list--he reminds me of a comment that I found very insightful that was made by a head of state in another country as I was visiting there. This man said to me, ``Politicians think that money comes from the budget.'' Money does not come from the budget. Money comes from the economy. If the economy doesn't work, there is no money in the budget. And if I may, Mr. President, I think that discussing financial modernization has a great deal to do with all of the issues that the Senator from Minnesota was discussing because it has to do with the health of the economy. If the banking system, the financial system, and the economy does not work efficiently, if it does not work carefully and properly, the economy as a whole will suffer, the amount of tax revenue coming into the Government will suffer, and we can have all of the discussions we want about solving all of the social problems with legislation, and then we will turn around and find that the cupboard is bare. It is very important that we recognize the impact of this legislation on the Nation's economy. As I said in my question to my friend from Minnesota, we heard testimony in the Banking Committee from the member of the administration most charged with focusing on this area of the economy, the Secretary of the Treasury, and with the head of the independent agency most charged with keeping the economy strong and vital, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, that it was essential that we modernize our financial legislative structure in this country. Why? They told us that foreign banks are coming to the United States, and as the American banks go overseas, they are competing in a different regulatory framework. They said that the American framework is outdated, it is outmoded, it is expensive, and that it gets in the way of America's ability to compete. The big banks that my friend from Minnesota attacks so vigorously, the last time I checked, all paid taxes on the revenues they received. The best way to make sure that we do not get those tax revenues is to say, let us hobble those banks in their competitive structure with foreign banks. Let's see to it that they cannot compete in the same kind of atmosphere as their foreign competitors, in the name of preventing them from concentrating power, and then see how much taxes we get from those big banks. Taxes are a percentage of profits; if there are no profits, there are no taxes and there is no money in the budget to pay for all of the programs that the Senator from Minnesota wants to fund. Now, he made another comment that I found fascinating, from a personal point of view. He said that, of course, the big banks don't like CRA because it forces them to do what they should be doing. He stands up for the little banks that he wants to protect from the big banks that, in his view, want to gobble them up. In my experience with this legislation, it has been exactly the reverse. The big banks have said to me: We don't much care about the CRA provisions. We have learned to live with CRA. We have learned to handle our banking practices in such a way that gets us appropriate CRA ratings. And some of the big banks have said: Don't pay any attention to the CRA amendments in this bill because we can live with them just fine. No. The protest about CRA has come, ironically, given the position of the Senator from Minnesota, from the small banks, the little bank. Let me give you an example that I have heard of, secondhand, but I think summarizes what we are dealing with here. I have heard of a bank in California that was opened by a group of Chinese Americans. What do you do in the marketplace when you are trying to find a niche that will allow you to survive, whether you are in the banking business, or the clothing business, or the automobile business, or whatever kind of a business? You do look around for some community that is not being served properly, and say to yourself, ``I can fill that niche.'' The oldest business advice in the world is find a need and fill it. Here were a group of Chinese Americans who decided that other Chinese Americans for some reason or another were not getting access to the credit they needed. They found this need and they hoped they could fill it. They did. They were successful. They prospered. Then comes the CRA regulators, and they said, ``Let us see your books. Let us look at your loans.'' They came back and said, ``You are only making loans to Chinese Americans. That is, you are not complying with the Community Reinvestment Act that requires you to make loans to Hispanics or African Americans or other minorities that we, the regulators, will identify and determine.'' The people at this bank said, ``Of course we are only making loans to Chinese Americans. That is what we set up to do. That is the market we set up to serve.'' ``Well, you will accept the penalties and strictures of CRA regulation if you do not go out and find statistically enough African Americans and Hispanics to meet our requirements.'' This was a community that these Chinese Americans did not understand instinctively. This was the community that they were not set up to serve. Maybe you can say that it was a good kind of thing for them to reach out beyond their natural business area and start serving these other sectors, but it created a burden on this small bank, and it was a very small bank that the managers of the bank objected to. In my own State of Utah, I get the same reaction. The big banks don't much care about CRA. They don't like it. They find it burdensome. But they have learned to live with it. Banks that have written in that are complaining are the little banks, and they are complaining for the same reason in the example that I have given. They feel they are serving their communities and they are being forced to try to reach beyond their natural communities to try to find somebody who can statistically qualify under CRA. This is from a very small bank in Utah. The President of the bank says, ``We have and will continue to lend to all segments of our community because it has been defined by regulation. The time spent documenting our community lending efforts for regulatory purposes is in itself counterproductive, as we could instead redirect our energies toward additional lending and community development activities.'' In other words, they are spending more time filling out forms for CRA than they are investing in their community. Another one from a very small town in Utah, and it is surrounded by the family farmers that the Senator from Minnesota was talking about: ``Exempting our institution from CRA requirements would allow bank personnel to spend more time with our customers and developing new products rather than gathering information to satisfy CRA documentation requirements.'' We will have a great deal more to say about the CRA issue, I am sure, when it comes up. I simply wanted to make those points in response to the points that were made by my friend from Minnesota, because he is very clearly talking to different people than I am talking to. He is talking to the people in the crossroads cafes. And I think that is fine. But I think when it gets to the issue of banking regulation, he might spend some time talking to people who run banks and talking to people who borrow from banks. He made another point that I will talk about and then get specifically to the bill. He talked about the concentration of power, and he railed at great length against corporations that he felt were destroying our democracy. ``Fewer and fewer people,'' he said--I wrote that phrase down--are controlling our economic power. I want to share a statistic that I saw in the paper last week that has an interesting slant on this. Back in, say, 1950--my memory is not sharp enough to give you the exact year, but it was sometime in the 1950s--the percentages of Americans who owned stock in corporations was 4 percent. Today it is over 50 percent. I would say to those who, like my colleague from Minnesota, are concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of a few people, who does he think owns Citibank? Who does he think owns these corporations that he says are so terrible? They are owned by Americans. They are owned by individuals. Fifty percent of Americans now own stock, and the number is going up all the time. This is one of the reasons that the class warfare arguments that we have heard around this Chamber for so long are beginning to wear thinner and thinner, because the people who own the corporations are ordinary, everyday, hard-working Americans. The days of J.P. Morgan being the controller of these institutions are over. J.P. Morgan is dead, his heirs scattered, and the controlling shareholder ownership of these corporations is in the hands of the teachers' pension fund--in the hands of ordinary people who have invested their savings in these corporations and have a stake in seeing to it that these corporations survive. That is why the class warfare arguments get thinner and thinner with each passing year. We are in a sense, Mr. President, turning Karl Marx on his head. He wanted the people to own all of the means of production. That was tried in the Soviet Union in the name of the government as they attacked the terrible capitalists in the United States, and ironically it is the capitalists that are seeing to it that the people ultimately own the means of production, but they own the means of production in their own name with shares held in their own name, which they can control and which they can vote and which they can sell if they don't like what the corporation is doing. And we are getting the people's ownership of the means of production through capitalism rather than through the forced distribution of wealth that Karl Marx and his followers practiced in modern communism. Having given that reaction to the political science lecture from my friend, who was once a professor of political science--I was never a professor, but I was once a student of political science, and I like to engage in these kinds of debate--I would like to say just a few words about the bill. The fact that it is just a few words is a testament to the expertise of our chairman who has worked harder and more personally on a piece of legislation than any chairman I have ever seen. We have resolved the controversies in this legislation to the point where there are only a few left. The Senator from Texas has led the fight in doing that. When we first started this, when I first came to the Banking Committee, the number of issues was huge and the gap between those issues was very wide. I would go out and people would ask me where we were on financial modernization. Unlike my friend from Minnesota, I did get those questions. I would go out in places where people were interested. And I would say repeatedly through my first term of service in the Senate that we were nowhere and we were not going to have financial modernization legislation, because the issues were so contentious and the gap between the two sides was so great that we were simply not going to get it done, and, quite frankly, I was not paying any attention to it for that reason. I didn't want to waste my time becoming cognizant of all of the ins and outs of these arguments when the arguments were going nowhere, and the legislation was going nowhere. We made a major step towards resolving these last year when Senator D'Amato was the chairman of the committee, and we finally began to grapple with some of these issues and tried to bring them closer together. But Senator Gramm has brought us even closer together and produced a bill on which there are now only relatively few issues in contention rather than the great many issues that were in contention 4 or 5 years ago. I think that is an extraordinary achievement, not only on the part of the chairman who has led the issue, but, frankly, on the part of the committee as a whole. The fact that we are having this debate when we should have been having it a few years ago, according to those who are following the issue, demonstrates how far we have come. This reminds me in some ways of the debate we had in the telecommunications bill where we had huge forces on both sides of the issue struggling, literally, for survival. We had telephone companies, cable companies, long-distance carriers, local carriers, all fighting over what would happen to their future. We finally came together on a bill that virtually everybody could buy off on. They weren't happy with it, but they said they could live with it. We made a landmark step forward in telecommunications. I think that analogy holds true here. Insurance companies, when I first came to the Senate, were bitter in their opposition to any kind of change that would affect them; banks were chomping at the bit for more competitive opportunities and complaining that laws passed in the 1930s were freezing them out; testimony which I have referred to from Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin indicated we are being savaged by foreign competition because our regulatory structure gets in the way; the securities industry and all the other folks, everybody agreed we needed reform but nobody could agree on the form of that reform. Now we have a bill before the Senate that, however reluctantly, the insurance companies have said, ``We can live with,'' and the banks have said, ``We can live with''--the big banks and the little banks that are not usually on the same page on everything; the insurance agents and the insurance companies are not necessarily always on the same page. We have reconciled these various interests now. The regulators have said they can live with this and that. There is only one major regulatory argument left, and we will do our best to work our way through that one and find a compromise. The time to pass the bill is now. The moment has come when all of these forces are together. Let us not waste that moment. Let the Senate not shatter it all and say we will deal with it later. The forces of competition that led Secretary Rubin and Chairman Greenspan to speak of the urgency of this are still there and their pressures are still there. The passage of time, as we get farther and farther away from the 1930s when our present regulatory structure was put in place, is not on our side in terms of making the financial services in this country efficient, more effective, and more competitive. We need this bill. We need it now. We should not lose the opportunity we have to seize the moment while there is a degree of agreement among all of the parties of the bill to get it done. I salute the chairman for his personal effort in getting us where we are. I urge the Senate to pass the bill.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Financial Institutions Insolvency Improvement Act of 1999. Recognizing that the changes to our Nations' banking laws have not kept pace with changes in our capital markets, this bill would strengthen the laws that enforce and protect certain financial agreements and transactions in the event that one of the parties involved becomes insolvent. This legislation would also harmonize the treatment of financial instruments under the bankruptcy code and the banking insolvency laws. The legislation that I am introducing is based largely on the recommendations made in March of 1998 by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. This same working group reiterated on April 29th of this year, in their report on hedge fund activity, that Congress should pass this legislation. However, in an effort to keep this legislation free and separate from the ongoing bankruptcy debate, I am only introducing those portions of the proposal which amend banking law. I will be chairing a hearing on this legislation on the Financial Institutions Subcommittee tomorrow morning. Since the adoption of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, Congress has recognized that certain financial market transactions qualify for different treatment in the event that one of the parties becomes insolvent. Specifically, many financial instruments are exempted from the automatic stay that is imposed on general commercial contracts during a bankruptcy proceeding. This is largely due to the fact that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), by law, becomes a trustee during any bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. President, the ability to terminate, or close out and ``net'' financial products is an essential and vital part of our capital markets. Congress has recognized that participants in swap transactions should have the ability to terminate and ``net'' their swap agreements. Simply put, netting means that money payments or other obligations owed between parties with multiple contracts can be offset against each other, and one net amount can be paid by one party to the other in settlement. Cross-product netting means that parties can net out different kinds of financial contracts, such as swap agreements being offset with repurchase agreements. By eliminating the need for large fund transfers for each transaction in favor of a smaller net payment, netting allows parties to enter into multiple-transaction relationships with reduced credit and liquidity exposures to a counterparty's insolvency. Many parties involved in financial transactions have entered into them for hedging purposes. My legislation encourages this type of behavior by clarifying that cross-product close-out netting should be permitted for positions in securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements and swaps. For example, in certain cases, the protections for financial contracts in the bank insolvency laws have not kept pace with market evolution. Assume, for example, that Party A and Party B have two outstanding equity swaps in which the payments are calculated on the basis of an equity securities index. If Party A enter insolvency, it is not entirely clear whether Party B's contractual rights to close-out and net would be protected by the current ``swap agreement'' definition in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. If both of the parties are ``financial institutions'' under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act or the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation EE and the swap agreements are ``netting contracts,'' then Party B might (although it is not entirely clear) be able to exercise its close-out, netting and foreclosure rights. However, if one of the parties is not a ``financial institution'' or the contract does not constitute a ``netting contract'' (for example, because it is governed by the laws of the United Kingdom), then Party B could be subject, among other things, to the risk of ``cherry- picking''--the risk that Party A's receiver would assume responsibility only for the swap that currently favors Party A, leaving Party B with a potentially sizable claim against Party A (which would be undersecured because of the impairment of netting) and the risk that its foreclosure on any collateral would be blocked indefinitely. This could impair Party B's creditworthiness, which in turn could lead to its default to its counterparties. It is this sort of ``chain reaction'' that can exacerbate systemic risk in the financial markets. Finally, Mr. President, it is important to recognize that the framework for the bill I am introducing was contained in S. 1301, the bankruptcy bill introduced by Senator Grassley last year which passed the Senate by a vote of 97-1.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Financial Institutions Insolvency Improvement Act of 1999. Recognizing that the changes to our Nations' banking laws have not kept pace with changes in our capital markets, this bill would strengthen the laws that enforce and protect certain financial agreements and transactions in the event that one of the parties involved becomes insolvent. This legislation would also harmonize the treatment of financial instruments under the bankruptcy code and the banking insolvency laws. The legislation that I am introducing is based largely on the recommendations made in March of 1998 by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. This same working group reiterated on April 29th of this year, in their report on hedge fund activity, that Congress should pass this legislation. However, in an effort to keep this legislation free and separate from the ongoing bankruptcy debate, I am only introducing those portions of the proposal which amend banking law. I will be chairing a hearing on this legislation on the Financial Institutions Subcommittee tomorrow morning. Since the adoption of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, Congress has recognized that certain financial market transactions qualify for different treatment in the event that one of the parties becomes insolvent. Specifically, many financial instruments are exempted from the automatic stay that is imposed on general commercial contracts during a bankruptcy proceeding. This is largely due to the fact that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), by law, becomes a trustee during any bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. President, the ability to terminate, or close out and ``net'' financial products is an essential and vital part of our capital markets. Congress has recognized that participants in swap transactions should have the ability to terminate and ``net'' their swap agreements. Simply put, netting means that money payments or other obligations owed between parties with multiple contracts can be offset against each other, and one net amount can be paid by one party to the other in settlement. Cross-product netting means that parties can net out different kinds of financial contracts, such as swap agreements being offset with repurchase agreements. By eliminating the need for large fund transfers for each transaction in favor of a smaller net payment, netting allows parties to enter into multiple-transaction relationships with reduced credit and liquidity exposures to a counterparty's insolvency. Many parties involved in financial transactions have entered into them for hedging purposes. My legislation encourages this type of behavior by clarifying that cross-product close-out netting should be permitted for positions in securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements and swaps. For example, in certain cases, the protections for financial contracts in the bank insolvency laws have not kept pace with market evolution. Assume, for example, that Party A and Party B have two outstanding equity swaps in which the payments are calculated on the basis of an equity securities index. If Party A enter insolvency, it is not entirely clear whether Party B's contractual rights to close-out and net would be protected by the current ``swap agreement'' definition in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. If both of the parties are ``financial institutions'' under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act or the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation EE and the swap agreements are ``netting contracts,'' then Party B might (although it is not entirely clear) be able to exercise its close-out, netting and foreclosure rights. However, if one of the parties is not a ``financial institution'' or the contract does not constitute a ``netting contract'' (for example, because it is governed by the laws of the United Kingdom), then Party B could be subject, among other things, to the risk of ``cherry- picking''--the risk that Party A's receiver would assume responsibility only for the swap that currently favors Party A, leaving Party B with a potentially sizable claim against Party A (which would be undersecured because of the impairment of netting) and the risk that its foreclosure on any collateral would be blocked indefinitely. This could impair Party B's creditworthiness, which in turn could lead to its default to its counterparties. It is this sort of ``chain reaction'' that can exacerbate systemic risk in the financial markets. Finally, Mr. President, it is important to recognize that the framework for the bill I am introducing was contained in S. 1301, the bankruptcy bill introduced by Senator Grassley last year which passed the Senate by a vote of 97-1.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical Information Protection Act of 1999. Trying to find the right balance between legitimate uses of health care data and the need for privacy has been a very difficult road to go down; however, I feel that great progress has been made and that the legislation that I am introducing strikes the right balance between the desire the patient has for increased confidentiality and the need our health care system has for information that will enable it to provide a higher quality of care. I am pleased that Senators Mack, Murkowski and Santorum have joined me as co-sponsors of this legislation and I am hopeful that a number of other senators will soon join us as well. In addition, I am pleased to include in the record a list of groups that have come out in support of this legislation. I am grateful for the many comments and suggestions I have received from a wide variety of organizations and individuals. Most of us wrongly assume that our personal health information is protected under federal law. It is not. Federal law protects the confidentiality of our video rental records, and federal law ensures us access to information about us such as our credit history. However, there is no current federal law which will protect the confidentiality of our medical information against unauthorized use and ensure us access to that same sensitive information about us. This is a circumstance that I believe should and must change. At this time, the only protection of an individual's personal medical information is under state law. These state laws, where they exist, are incomplete, inconsistent and in most cases inadequate. At last check, there were approximately 35 states with 35 unique laws governing the use and disclosure of medical information. Even in those states where there are existing laws, there is no penalty for releasing and disseminating the most private information about our health and the health care we have received. As our health care delivery systems continue to expand across state lines, efficiency, research advances and the delivery of the highest quality of care possible depend upon the flow of information. This year alone, a large number of states have either considered passing new legislation or have attempted to modify existing laws. As states act to meet the concerns of their residents, the patchwork of state laws become ever more complex. If this trend continues, the high quality care and research breakthroughs we have come to expect and demand from our health care system would be jeopardized because health care organizations would be forced to track and comply with multiple, conflicting and increasingly complex state laws. Clearly, in today's world, health information must be permitted to flow across state lines if we are to expect the highest level of health care. For example, in Utah, Intermountain Health Care (IHC), the largest care provider based in my state also provides care in four other western states. IHC currently maintains secure databases of patient information which each of its member facilities in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming draw upon to provide and improve care. Requiring them to comply with multiple state laws does not add to the quality of health care they provide, but does add to the cost of health care they provide. Many IHC patients live in one state yet their closest hospital, clinic or physicians office is in another state. I am sure this example appears throughout the country in one form or another given the consolidation of the health care industry and the large percentage of us who live near state lines. In addition, we are seeing an emergence of telemedicine and health care services over the internet that adds another degree of complexity to this entire circumstance. Technology is not only improving the quality of care and improving patient access to services, it is also making the need for one strong federal law more critical. The majority of providers, insurers, health care professionals, researchers and patients agree that there is an increasingly urgent need for uniformity in our laws that govern access to and disclosure of personal health information. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that if we do not act by August of 1999 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to put in to place regulations governing health information in an electronic format. Thus, we could have a circumstance where paper based records and electronic based records are treated differently. I do not believe Congress wants to protect one form of medical records and not another, and I do not think that we should permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement regulations without further direction from the Congress. Congress should not neglect its responsibility and duty to legislate and provide appropriate direction to the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass legislation that would give HHS clear direction and provide each American with greater protection of their health information. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a list of groups supporting this legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical Information Protection Act of 1999. Trying to find the right balance between legitimate uses of health care data and the need for privacy has been a very difficult road to go down; however, I feel that great progress has been made and that the legislation that I am introducing strikes the right balance between the desire the patient has for increased confidentiality and the need our health care system has for information that will enable it to provide a higher quality of care. I am pleased that Senators Mack, Murkowski and Santorum have joined me as co-sponsors of this legislation and I am hopeful that a number of other senators will soon join us as well. In addition, I am pleased to include in the record a list of groups that have come out in support of this legislation. I am grateful for the many comments and suggestions I have received from a wide variety of organizations and individuals. Most of us wrongly assume that our personal health information is protected under federal law. It is not. Federal law protects the confidentiality of our video rental records, and federal law ensures us access to information about us such as our credit history. However, there is no current federal law which will protect the confidentiality of our medical information against unauthorized use and ensure us access to that same sensitive information about us. This is a circumstance that I believe should and must change. At this time, the only protection of an individual's personal medical information is under state law. These state laws, where they exist, are incomplete, inconsistent and in most cases inadequate. At last check, there were approximately 35 states with 35 unique laws governing the use and disclosure of medical information. Even in those states where there are existing laws, there is no penalty for releasing and disseminating the most private information about our health and the health care we have received. As our health care delivery systems continue to expand across state lines, efficiency, research advances and the delivery of the highest quality of care possible depend upon the flow of information. This year alone, a large number of states have either considered passing new legislation or have attempted to modify existing laws. As states act to meet the concerns of their residents, the patchwork of state laws become ever more complex. If this trend continues, the high quality care and research breakthroughs we have come to expect and demand from our health care system would be jeopardized because health care organizations would be forced to track and comply with multiple, conflicting and increasingly complex state laws. Clearly, in today's world, health information must be permitted to flow across state lines if we are to expect the highest level of health care. For example, in Utah, Intermountain Health Care (IHC), the largest care provider based in my state also provides care in four other western states. IHC currently maintains secure databases of patient information which each of its member facilities in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming draw upon to provide and improve care. Requiring them to comply with multiple state laws does not add to the quality of health care they provide, but does add to the cost of health care they provide. Many IHC patients live in one state yet their closest hospital, clinic or physicians office is in another state. I am sure this example appears throughout the country in one form or another given the consolidation of the health care industry and the large percentage of us who live near state lines. In addition, we are seeing an emergence of telemedicine and health care services over the internet that adds another degree of complexity to this entire circumstance. Technology is not only improving the quality of care and improving patient access to services, it is also making the need for one strong federal law more critical. The majority of providers, insurers, health care professionals, researchers and patients agree that there is an increasingly urgent need for uniformity in our laws that govern access to and disclosure of personal health information. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that if we do not act by August of 1999 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to put in to place regulations governing health information in an electronic format. Thus, we could have a circumstance where paper based records and electronic based records are treated differently. I do not believe Congress wants to protect one form of medical records and not another, and I do not think that we should permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement regulations without further direction from the Congress. Congress should not neglect its responsibility and duty to legislate and provide appropriate direction to the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass legislation that would give HHS clear direction and provide each American with greater protection of their health information. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a list of groups supporting this legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Bill Lamb upon his retirement for his thirty-six years of dedicated service with the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Lamb retired on April 2, 1999 after four successful years as BLM's State Director in Utah. As native Utahn, Bill Lamb began to work for the BLM in 1963 at the age of 22. A graduate of Utah State University, he served in a number of positions varying from a range conservationist, Director of the Arizona Strip to a budget official here in Washington. For the last four years Bill has served as the Utah State BLM Director. I know that I speak for all of the members of the Utah delegation when I say that it has been a privilege to work with him. I have watched Bill perform with grace under pressure, always dealing with the contentious land management issues in Utah with an even-hand and a listening ear. His well-deserved reputation for always being honest and candid helped sooth over the hard feelings and frayed nerves brought on by the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. He was instrumental in the successful completion of the historic Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 1998 which traded State Trust lands locked up in the Grand Staircase for other federal lands in Utah. Bill worked to preserve important wildlife habitat and at the same time, increased public participation through the creation of the Washington County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan and the reestablishment of the citizens' advisory board. He always strived to maintain a balance between conservation and utilization and in the process earned a reputation for being one of the most able and affable leaders within BLM. I will miss his valuable advice and perspective tremendously. Secretary Babbitt said: ``Bill Lamb has done a remarkable job in one of the most demanding positions in the BLM.'' I could not agree more. I thank Bill for his service that was at many times thankless. He will be sorely missed. I wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize an exceptionally special event that occurred yesterday, April 19, 1999. John Stephenson, Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 (Y2K) Technology Problem, and his wife welcomed the arrival of Eric Tyler, the newest member of the Stephenson family. Eric arrived yesterday at 11:53 a.m. weighing in at a healthy 6 pounds 15 ounces and measuring 19 inches long. I am extremely pleased to offer my sincere congratulations to John, Penny, and Eric's older sister, Kaitlyn. I must say that the staff leadership within the Y2K committee has been a prolific one. Late last year on September 17, 1998, Robert Cresanti, Committee Staff Director, and Colleen, his wife, introduced Katja Maria, their first-born child, who arrived measuring 20.5 inches and a hearty 8 pounds 10 ounces. This is an excellent opportunity to express my personal heartfelt congratulations to Robert and Colleen. As I ponder these events, I wonder if there is any connection to the fact that we now have another member of the committee professional staff that is expecting their third child. You might question if the due date is targeted for January 1, 2000. I will tell you that at this point, the expected delivery date is much earlier, November 26th. We will anxiously await yet another addition to the committee staff's offspring.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on March 25, 1999, the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem published its rules of procedure. Also published was an overview of the Committee's jurisdiction and authority. We publish today the corrected and complete statement of jurisdiction and authority of the Committee which is provided by S. Res. 208, 105th Congress, as amended by S. Res. 231, 105th Congress, and S. Res. 7, 106th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the corrected and completed statement of jurisdiction and authority be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the Committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record of the first year of each Congress. The rules adopted by the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem to govern the Committee's procedures remain in effect and unchanged for the current Congress. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I am submitting for printing in the Record a copy of the Rules of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. The Rules follow:

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I had not thought to address this subject, but the opportunity presents itself here and I find that I have reactions to this morning's newspaper that I would like to share with the Senate. There were two things that happened yesterday, both of which are reported in this morning's paper. I think they come together with an interesting connection. The first one was a briefing held here in this building, on the fourth floor, on the issue of Kosovo and what the United States is about to do there. Attending that briefing, appropriately reported in this morning's paper, were the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the President's National Security Adviser and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Basically, they told us we are on the brink of going to war; that is, that the United States is prepared, with its NATO allies, to attack a country within its own borders to resolve a dispute among its own people in a way that the United States feels is appropriate. There are those who have advised us to stay out of a civil war, not go in the borders of another sovereign nation in order to resolve the dispute within that nation. But let us assume the stakes here are high enough to justify disregarding that advice. The second piece of advice that we are given is, if you do go into a civil war, pick a side. It is not entirely clear to me, from attending the briefing, that we know exactly which side we are for and what outcome we want. Because the third advice that comes along is, if you are going to go into a civil war and you are going to pick a side, make sure it is going to win. Again, in the briefing we had yesterday I was not satisfied that those four representatives of the administration had demonstrated a compelling case. But I do not rise to issue a challenge to them on those grounds. Instead, I rise because of the connection, as I say, between two events: No. 1, a briefing of the Senate of the United States on the eve of the United States committing an act of war; and, No. 2, a report as to what the President of the United States was doing last night. In this morning's newspaper we are told that the President conducted a boffo performance before a dinner made up of representatives of the press, that he received three standing ovations, and in the Style section of the Washington Post we are told some of his best one liners. This is why I find such a jarring disconnect between the President preparing one liners in the White House for a reporters' dinner and the President's advisers talking to the Senate about going to war. During the briefing that we had in this building yesterday, prior to the United States committing an act of war, we were told that one of the reasons we had to go ahead with this action was because we had gone so far down the road, in consultation with our allies, it would damage our treaty obligations with our allies if we did not proceed. I must confess I was offended--indeed, perhaps outraged by that logic--not because of what it said about what the administration had done with respect to our allies, but because of what it said about what the administration had not done with respect to its constitutional responsibilities. In the Constitution of the United States, the power to declare war is vested in the Congress of the United States. Very clearly, very specifically, without equivocation, Congress shall declare war. We are on the verge of actions that are the equivalent of the United States going to war. The justification we are receiving for taking those warlike actions is that the administration has made commitments to foreign governments. Why is the administration entering into conversations, consultations and other relationships with foreign governments about going to war and not talking to the Congress of the United States about going to war, instead, preparing one liners for a dinner with members of the press so the President can get standing ovations for his comedic abilities, the President competing with Bob Hope and David Letterman, while the United States is on the verge of sending its young men and women into harm's way in a situation which, according to the President's advisers, will ``take casualties''? The phrase, ``we will take casualties,'' is a euphemism to say that Americans are going to be killed. They are going to come home in body bags, and they will be killed in a war that Congress has not declared. They will be killed in a war that takes place because the administration has consulted with our allies and is worried about embarrassing themselves with our allies but cannot bother to bring themselves to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to come to the one agency that, under the Constitution, has the authority to declare war--that is, the Congress of the United States. Indeed, in that briefing we were told that American forces will face the most serious challenge militarily that we have faced since the gulf war, and some said the most serious air defenses we would face since the Second World War. Yet the administration does not bother to talk to Congress about this and gain congressional authority for these actions. Instead, the administration spends its time talking to our allies. Don't make any mistake, I am not objecting to the fact that the administration has consulted with our allies. I think that is right and proper that we should do that. Don't they have any sense of proportion or constitutional responsibility in this White House? Don't they understand that the Constitution says Congress has the right to declare war, not the President? The last time we went into major military confrontation was over the gulf war. At that time, the White House was in the hands of a Republican President. That Republican President, whom I consider a good personal friend and for whom I have the highest affection, was going down this same road. He was preparing to take America to war without a congressional authorization to do so. There were those in this body who stood and said, ``Mr. President, you cannot take us to war without the approval of Congress.'' President Bush and his advisers resisted that logic for a while. Interestingly enough, one of the Senators who spoke out most vigorously, saying to the President you have no right to take us to war without congressional authorization, is now the Secretary of Defense. Then-Senator Cohen said repeatedly, to his own administration and his own party, you cannot take us to war without congressional authorization. I am delighted and pleased that ultimately President Bush came to realize that truth and that America did not go to war in the gulf without congressional authority. President Bush had made all of the same kinds of commitments to allies that we now hear that President Clinton has made to our NATO allies with respect to Kosovo. It would have been enormously embarrassing for President Bush had the Congress not approved his action. He risked that embarrassment because he recognized his constitutional responsibilities. He came to Congress. The vote was close. He ran the risk of losing that vote, but ultimately, the Congress approved America's going ahead with the gulf war. We went ahead with the gulf war. Yes, we did take casualties, but we set a precedent that is in concert with the constitutional responsibilities that we all face. America could say we went to war with the proper constitutional authorization. I fear we are on the verge of going to war without the proper constitutional authorization. I fear the President of the United States, because of his concern--if we can believe what we were told in the Capitol briefing yesterday--over our relationship with our allies, is not willing to risk his constitutional responsibility to come to Congress. I wish that instead of perfecting his one liners for the correspondents dinner last night, the President had been working on a message to Congress. I wish the President of the United States would come before a joint session of the Congress and explain to us what vital national interests are at stake here and why it is necessary for the United States to consider attacking another sovereign nation. Obviously, he must feel the reasons are compelling or he would not have gone so far down the road as he has already gone. Let him share those compelling reasons with the people of the United States. Obviously, he feels he has a case to make or he would not have pilots standing at the ready to begin bombing. Let him make that case before the Congress of the United States. Let him recognize that when he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, similar to the oath that we took, he cannot ignore the phrase in the Constitution that says that Congress has the right to declare war, not the President. It could not be clearer. The difference in the President's priorities could not be clearer. Instead of preparing a message to Congress, he was preparing comedic one liners for a correspondents dinner. Do my colleagues know what one of those one liners was, Mr. President? It is one of the things that offended me the most, reading the paper this morning. He referred to the fact that the vote in the Senate on the impeachment trial had acquitted him and said, ``If it had gone the other way, I wouldn't be here tonight.'' Then the appropriate comedic pause, and he said, ``I demand a recount.'' Laughter. Mr. President, I suggest, in the strongest terms I can muster, that the President should not be making light of the dangers of his appearing before a group of correspondents while his administration is in the process of preparing to send young Americans to their death. Flying over Kosovo with the air defenses that are embedded in those mountains firing at you is more dangerous than appearing before a group of correspondents who might write nasty columns about you. For the President to joke about the hazards of his appearing before that dinner on the eve of sending Americans into harm's way, where we are certainly going to see some of them come home in body bags, is to me deeply offensive. Mr. President, I conclude with what is obvious about my position. The President of the United States has a constitutional duty before he sends Americans to war to come to the Congress of the United States and get some form of declaration of war. I believe he will abrogate his constitutional duty and violate his oath if he does not do that. Without his coming to us and without our adopting constitutionally accurate support for his actions, I will vote against everything that he proposes to do, against the appropriations. I will vote in every way I can to say the President of the United States has violated his oath and violated the Constitution if he proceeds in the manner that we were informed about in our briefings yesterday. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I can't pass up the opportunity to embarrass Bob Kerrey. I know, as we all do, that he did not ask for this and that it is always uncomfortable to come to your own wake, but he deserves it. I want to participate in it and do what I can to not only add to his embarrassment a little, but to let him know how well regarded he is on both sides of the aisle and among those who may disagree with him on all of the great issues that the minority leader just listed. I served in the military at a time when the only shots I ever heard fired were in basic training. After I got out of basic training, I ended up in classroom and spent my time trying to teach surveying to a group of draftees who didn't understand what the word meant. The only reason I was doing that is because my particular military specialty, for which I was being trained, was being phased out in the way the military always does. They train you for an obsolete skill and then make you an instructor to teach that skill to other people who do not need it. I have absolutely no basis for identifying with the group, the very small group of people who have heard shots fired in anger, who have faced the difficulty and the challenge of combat. I can only read about it. I can only hear about it. I cannot identify with it in any personal way. So why am I taking the time to stand here and talk about the contribution of Bob Kerrey when everyone who has had those kinds of experiences has talked about it? I am standing because of an experience I had 2 years ago--3 years ago now--with the former majority leader, Bob Dole. I was on the campaign trail with Senator Dole, and we were out making the usual kinds of stops. I was told our next stop was in Battle Creek, MI. Battle Creek, MI, to me means breakfast cereal. I had no idea why Senator Dole wanted to go to Battle Creek, MI. We went into a building in Battle Creek, a Federal building. It was under renovation, but the lobby had not been renovated. I felt as if I had walked into a movie set. It was the 1940s all over again. This building, being renovated into a Federal office building, had been a Federal hospital. It was the hospital where Bob Dole spent, on and off, 3 years of his life. They had found the place--that is, the floor-- where Bob Dole's bed had been when he was taken there in a condition where he could do nothing for himself. He couldn't brush his teeth himself. He certainly couldn't go to the bathroom for himself. He was just taken there and placed in a bed and left there, as they began to work on him. We walked around the floor. As I say, it was being renovated. Finally, Senator Dole identified the place on that floor where his bed had been. He stood there and said, ``Yep, that's the view out of the window; that's where the bathroom was, where I would be wheeled,'' so on, so forth. ``Okay, let's go.'' It was the working press that said, ``Wait a minute, Senator. Don't leave. Tell us how you feel.'' Probably for the first time in public, Bob Dole told us what it was like in a military hospital without any prospects, without any immediate hope, completely paralyzed by his condition. The thing that struck me the most and the thing that brings me to my feet today was his description of some of the other things that happened in that war. He said, catching me completely by surprise, ``Over there was where Phil Hart had his bed.'' And he said, ``Over there''--or maybe it was down the hall--``was Danny Inouye.'' He said, ``Phil wasn't hurt as badly as the rest of us, so he could get out from time to time. The Hart family owned a hotel down the street, and he would go down to the hotel and get some decent food for us and smuggle it in so that we didn't have the hospital food all the time.'' He said, ``Danny Inouye was the best bridge player in the whole hospital.'' Subsequent to that, I talked to Senator Inouye on the subway and said, ``I understand you were the best bridge player in the hospital in Battle Creek.'' He said, ``Oh, no, I wasn't very good; it's just that Dole was terrible.'' Then Bob Dole said, ``As I got a little better, they began to move my bed around the hospital, because I could tell jokes and I would cheer some of the others up.'' Why do I bring this up? Of course, we all know Bob Dole. We have named a building after Phil Hart. I don't know what we will name after Danny Inouye, but he is still here. I bring this up with respect to Bob Kerrey because we honor these men not solely for what they did in the military, not solely for what they did to rebuild their bodies, but for the example they set to rebuild their lives. To me, that is more heroic than the instant in battle when your instincts take over and you do what your duty tells you you have to do. I say that without ever having been there. So I could well be wrong. But how much heroism is involved in pulling yourself together when you are lying in a bed unable to brush your own teeth and say, ``I'm going to rebuild my body, I'm going to rebuild my life, I'm going to go to law school or found a restaurant,'' or do whatever it is that has to be done to such an extent that you are qualified in the eyes of the voters in the State in which you live to represent them in the U.S. Senate. We are surrounded by heroes, not just because of what they did while under enemy fire, but what they did in the years following when they gave our children and our contemporaries the example of never giving up, of never allowing what happened to them to destroy them. Bob Dole was such a hero; Phil Hart was such a hero; Danny Inouye, John McCain, Max Cleland, and Bob Kerrey. I will never join the select group of people who receive military honors or military medals, but I am proud to be part of the select group that knows and works with these heroes, these men who have demonstrated to us that what you do over a lifetime is many times more important than what you do in an instant, and Bob Kerrey stands at the first rank of that select group, and I salute him.