Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I object.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding that it is, Madam President. And I would like to underscore that point by going to the primary in 1998. In 1998, there were no Senate candidates on the primary ballot from either party, I having eliminated my challenger within the party within the convention, and my Democratic opponent having had no challenger in his convention. We did not have a gubernatorial race. There was no challenge in the Second Congressional District, which is in the large media market. But there was a primary in the Third Congressional District, where the incumbent Congressman was challenged by a gentleman who made it very clear that he not only would not accept PAC money, he would not accept party contributions, he would not accept individual contributions. He said, ``I will take my message directly to the people without accepting any money''--as he put it, in biblical terms--``gold and silver, from anyone.'' And the result of that primary was the lowest turnout that anyone can recall. His opponent did not spend any money. I talked to his opponent, the incumbent Congressman. I said, ``Aren't you going to spend anything?'' He said, ``I'm nervous it will look like overkill if I do.'' He did spend a little money on a get-out-the-vote campaign, but he did not buy any ads. There were no television broadsides and no radio ads. Most of the people in the district, by virtue of the lower spending, did not know an election was going on, and you had the lowest turnout in Utah history in that district. So I submit, Madam President, that at least on the basis of the anecdote with which I am the most familiar, the more participation that you want, the more money you had better be prepared to spend. And if you are in fact decrying the low level of turnout and the low level of participation and you want to do something about that, then you defeat this amendment, because this amendment would take us down the road to further lowering the ability of candidates to access the voters and thereby let the voters know that an election is going on. If I may go back to the historic pattern that I was outlining as to what has happened in this century, I would refer once again, Madam President, to the quote that I gave from the article in the Wilson Quarterly that ``the reformers' * * * efforts to improve the American political system did at least as much harm as good * * * and hastened the decline of voter participation.'' The article goes on to say: Twentieth-century politicking would prove to be far more expensive than 19th-century . . . politics . . . And as the century went on, politicians increasingly had to struggle to be heard above the din from competing forms of entertainment . . . That is a very interesting way of putting it, Madam President. Politicians had to compete with the din of competing forms of entertainment. If you read the history books, there was a time when politics was the leading form of entertainment in this country. If you were going to have a rally, a bonfire, something to do, you went out and got involved in politics. As other forms of communication and entertainment came along, it became increasingly difficult. I have a personal experience I can share on this which is perhaps not political but which makes the point. I served as a missionary for the church to which I belong in the early 1950s. And I served in the British Isles, where one of the great traditions of the British Isles is what is known as a street meeting. You stand on a street corner, you talk as loud as you can, and you hope somebody stops and listens to you. On a good evening in the summertime, when the weather is fine, you could almost always draw a crowd. I would go down to the city square in Edinburgh, and the Salvation Army would be on that corner, and the Church of Scotland would be on that corner, and the Scottish nationalists would be over here, and I and my companions would be here. The square would be filled with people, and you would compete with each other to see who could draw the biggest crowd and then who could hold the crowd as the other orators were speaking on their issues--the Scottish nationalists demanding that Scotland separate itself from the British tyranny, the Salvation Army putting forth--they were unfair in my book because they had a band. We did not have a band, we just had our own voices to carry it on. It was a great British tradition and still, presumably, goes on in some parts of Hyde Park in London, but I think only rarely now. What happened to dry up the crowds that would show up and listen to the orators on politics and religion and everything else? Television. As soon they could stay home and watch television, they were not interested in coming down to the city square in Edinburgh to listen to a tall bald kid from America. However entertaining that may have been in an earlier time, all of a sudden there was competition. Politicians used to be at that square. Politicians have discovered, in the words of the article, that they have to ``struggle to be heard above the din from competing forms of entertainment.'' And how are they heard? They buy an ad. They go on television themselves. They go on radio themselves. How are they going to get access to the voters? They are going to have to compete in the same places where the voters are. It makes you feel wonderful to stand on a street corner and give an absolutely brilliant speech, if there is anybody listening. But I can tell you from real experience, it makes you feel quite foolish to stand on a street corner and give an absolutely brilliant speech to a group of pigeons that keep flying in and out. If you are going to get access to the voters, you have to go where the voters are, and the voters are by their radio sets and in front of their television sets, and that is where you have to be, however much you might not like it. Back to the article: By letting politicians appeal directly and ``personally'' to masses of voters, television made money, not manpower, the key to political success. Campaigns became ``professionalized,'' with ``consultants'' and elaborate ``ad-buys,'' and that added to the cost. So did the fact that as party loyalties diminished, candidates had to build their own individual organizations and ``images.'' I go back to the question of, Why did the party loyalties diminish? Because the reformers showed up and said, ``Parties are evil.'' It was the reform movement that diminished the power of parties, so that it did not make enough difference for an individual to win his party's nomination, he had to have his own organization, his own campaign consultants, and his own ad-buys. Again, if I can give a personal anecdote to demonstrate this, my first experience with politics was in 1950 when my father ran for the U.S. Senate. Who managed his campaign that first year? It was the Republican State Party chairman who showed up when dad won the nomination and said, ``OK, we have a party organization in place and we are going to run your campaign.'' When my father ran for his last term in the U.S. Senate in 1968, I am not sure I remember who the Republican State chairman was, because by that time we had created our own organization--Volunteers for Bennett, Neighbors for Bennett, our own door-to-door system of handing out information. We had our own advertising budget and our own advertising program. We had to take it all over ourselves if we were going to get access to the voters in a meaningful way. And all of that costs money. It was the cost of the politicians gaining access to the voters that was going up and that was what was driving the fundraising challenge. Then we got to what is considered the great watershed in American campaign finance problems, Watergate. The article addresses that, as well. If I might quote once again: Yet for all the pious hopes, the goal of the Watergate era reforms--to remove the influence of money from presidential elections--was hard and inescapable fact, ridiculous. Very few areas of American life are insulated from the power of money. Politics, which is, after all, about power, had limited potential to be turned into a platonic refuge from the influence of mammon. The new Puritanism of the post- Watergate era often backfired . . . Tinkering with the political system in many cases just made it worse. I can offer anecdotes about that, as well. Let me give one. We heard in the hearings to which the Senator from Connecticut referred in the Thompson committee with respect to campaign finance reform, we heard there about a campaign that many can argue changed the course of American history. It was the McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire in 1968. Eugene McCarthy, a distinguished member of this body, decided against all political wisdom that he was going to challenge an incumbent President within his own party over an issue he considered to be a moral issue, the Vietnam war. Conventional wisdom said a sitting Senator does not do that to an incumbent President. The sitting Senator does not take on an incumbent President of his own party. But Eugene McCarthy did. He went to New Hampshire. He did not win, but he came close enough to scare Lyndon Johnson and his advisers so badly that within a relatively short period of time after the McCarthy challenge, Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection as President of the United States. Now, we heard in the Thompson committee this bit about the McCarthy campaign. He went to five individuals, individuals of wealth, and said, ``I want to challenge Lyndon Johnson on the basis of principle; will you support me?'' And each one of those five said yes. Each one gave him $100,000. So he went to New Hampshire with a war chest of half a million dollars--which at the time was sufficient for him to gain access to the voters. Again, the theme that I am trying to lay down here, the whole issue is not access to the politician; the issue is access to the voters. Eugene McCarthy could not have had access to the voters without that $500,000. We would, perhaps, not have had history changed the way it was as a result of the McCarthy campaign if those five men had not put up $100,000 apiece. Now, someone connected with the McCarthy campaign testified before our committee and he gave this very interesting comment. He said those who signed the Declaration of Independence were so concerned about their Government that they were willing to pledge, in the words of that declaration, ``their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.'' Then he said, in today's world it would say, ``your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor, just as long as it does not exceed $1,000 per cycle.'' Now, I think the McCarthy campaign and the result of that demonstrates how the reforms of the Watergate era have backfired, how they have made it impossible for many people who would otherwise have a message worth hearing, to gain access to the voters. Let me give an example out of the last campaign. One of the more energetic of America's politicians is a former Member of the House, former member of the Cabinet named Jack Kemp. He brings to politics the same enthusiasm that he used to display on the football field. Sometimes he has the same suicidal motives that he seemed to have on the football field, but he plays the game with that kind of zest. Jack Kemp dearly wanted to run for President in 1996. He had run once before and he still had it in his blood and he was ready to go. I talked to Jack Kemp and said, ``Are you going to do it?'' And he said, ``No.'' I said, ``Why not?'' He said, ``I can't bring myself to go through the agony of raising the money.'' This is not cowardice on his part. If there is anything Jack Kemp is not, it is a coward. This is not lack of enthusiasm on Jack Kemp's part. It was a recognition of the fact that the so-called reforms out of Watergate meant that he could not do what Eugene McCarthy did. He could not go to five individuals and say, ``Give me $100,000 a piece to get me started.'' He had to do it $1,000 at a time. He said to me, ``Bob, I would have to hold 200 fundraisers between now and the end of the year to do it, and I simply cannot eat that much chicken.''

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that Jason McNamara, Catharine Cyr, Angela Ewell-Madison, Mike Heeb, and Amanda Lawrence of Senator Bob Graham's staff have floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order regarding amendments that one additional amendment may be considered.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, this amendment provides funding for a wide array of programs throughout the Interior bill, predominantly to meet requirements such as fixed cost increases in maintenance, the $60 million offsets derived from excess funds held in escrow pursuant to the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act. These funds are in excess of the funds projected to be required to pay any restitution pursuant to the act. I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed description of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I recognize that under the order established by the unanimous consent agreement of the majority leader there would be no further amendments to the Interior bill until after the McCain-Feingold bill has been dispensed with one way or the other. However, I ask unanimous consent that that consent notwithstanding, there be an opportunity to discuss another amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the additional remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, or longer if they obtain consent.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I object.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 9. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the time until 9:45 be equally divided between Senators Cochran and Levin or their designees, relating to the motion to proceed to the missile defense bill. I further ask that at 9:45, the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the missile defense bill, with the mandatory quorum under rule XXII being waived.

Mr. BENNETT. I further ask consent that if cloture is not invoked on the motion to proceed, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2237, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday at 9 a.m., there will be 45 minutes of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the missile defense bill. That vote should occur at approximately 9:45 a.m. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. At 4:30, assuming cloture is not invoked on the missile defense legislation, the Senate will begin 30 minutes of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bankruptcy bill. That vote will occur at approximately 5 p.m. Therefore, Members should expect votes throughout Wednesday's session, with the first vote occurring at approximately 9:45 a.m.