Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

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 the 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 ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer another amendment.

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Finally, I ask unanimous consent, if cloture is not invoked, that at 4:30 p.m. the Senate begin 30 minutes of debate on the motion to proceed to the bankruptcy bill, equally divided between Senators Hatch and Durbin; further, that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bankruptcy bill, with the mandatory quorum under rule XXII being waived.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand H.R. 3682, the child custody protection bill, is at the desk. I now ask for its first reading.

Mr. BENNETT. I ask for its second reading and I object to my own request on behalf of Senators on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, under the previous order, I understand I am to be recognized for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, this morning there will be a period of morning business for up to 15 minutes. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Texas Compact conference report, with 40 minutes remaining for debate equally divided between Senators Snowe and Wellstone. At the conclusion of debate time, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report. Therefore, the first rollcall vote of today's session will occur at approximately 10 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will resume consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Rollcall votes are expected throughout Wednesday's session as the Senate attempts to complete action on the foreign operations appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, yesterday, as is the habit in the Senate, the Republicans met in policy luncheon during the lunch hour, and during that meeting I made some comments which, under the terms of the meeting, normally remain confidential. Apparently they were sufficiently provocative that, within an hour or so of the meeting, my office was besieged with calls from reporters who wanted to know if I was going to proceed in the manner that had been reported to them. Others of my colleagues were similarly accosted by reporters who wanted to know what is Senator Bennett going to do on the issue he raised in the policy lunch. Rather than try to respond to each of those reporters individually, I decided that I would take the floor this morning and make a presentation of what it was I said at the policy lunch yesterday, and thereby end any suspense anyone may have. I assure you, this issue is probably not worth the amount of concern that was stirred up yesterday, but I will make it clear what I said and what I have in mind. The issue that was under discussion had to do with the behavior of the President of the United States, as indicated by his statement to the people of America several weeks ago. I made this comment. I said that if any Member of this body had engaged in that kind of behavior, he or she would be subject to censure for that behavior, and I singled out three areas in particular which I feel would be worthy of censure. The first: It is now clear that the President of the United States had a relationship with an intern who was under his control and in his purview within the White House, which was improper, or, in the words of the President himself, ``wrong.'' This was not a chance encounter. It was not a matter of her bringing him a piece of pizza, catching his eye, he catching her eye, she smiled at him, he smiled at her, and something improper happened and that was the end of it. It was an affair with sexual activity that began in December of 1995 and continued for 18 months, including the period of time after she had left the White House and was no longer in the President's direct line of report. And it ended, apparently, only because it was discovered and reported in the public. If any Member of this body had that kind of a relationship with an intern in his office he would, I think, very appropriately be subject to censure from the Ethics Committee and by the Senate as a whole. That is the first item. The second item: When this matter became public, the President went before the public and insisted in the most emphatic possible language that it had not happened. Furthermore, he then gathered his Cabinet and his closest aides around him and, in direct personal contact with many of them, assured them that the public reports of this activity were false, and urged them to go forward and speak in his behalf repeating that denial. We had members of the President's Cabinet come before the Congress and repeat that denial, in effect lying to the Congress from their position as Cabinet officers on behalf of the President of the United States. This, in my opinion, is the second thing that would justify censure, lying and urging others, particularly members of his official family, to lie in various fora, including an official forum of the Congress of the United States. Then there is the third: While this was going on, for a period of 7 to 7\1/2\ months, the President allowed many of his subordinates, aides and supporters to not only lie about this issue--admittedly, they thought they were telling the truth because they had believed the President--but also to attack and smear those who were telling the truth; to go after the reputation of those who had come forward with an accurate description of what was going on and attempt to destroy those reputations in the public arena. This, in my opinion, would be a third reason for censure. And I repeat, I am convinced that if any Member of this body had, No. 1, engaged in that kind of extended improper sexual relationship with an intern; No. 2, lied to his own associates and urged those associates to go forward and lie in his behalf; and, No. 3, then sat by while others of his official family smeared the reputations of those who were telling the truth, a motion for censure would be brought upon this floor and passed, I believe, overwhelmingly. So I raised in the policy luncheon yesterday the possibility of having a motion of censure raised as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with respect to the President of the United States. I pointed out that this should in no way prejudge any impeachment activity that might occur in the House of Representatives for several reasons. In the first place, we do not know what is in Judge Starr's report that will come to the House of Representatives, and what I have described has public circulation, indeed confirmation by the President himself, and therefore need not depend upon Judge Starr's report in order for us to act upon it. Second, Judge Starr's report and the action of the House of Representatives will not take place, if such action does occur, until the 106th Congress. I believe that something as serious as this should be commented on by the 105th Congress. I do not know that I will be in the 106th Congress. I hope I will be. The political signs in my home State indicate that I will be. But I can take nothing for granted, and I raised with my colleagues yesterday the possibility of having this Congress go on record as stating that it found totally unacceptable and subject to condemnation--because the word ``censure'' is a synonym for condemn--the actions of the President in the three areas I have described. I pointedly said I do not want to go beyond those three areas with any resolution of censure because I do not know what is in Ken Starr's report. I do not want to prejudge the issue of whether or not those three items constitute impeachable offenses or high crimes and misdemeanors as such offenses are described in the Constitution. I think that is the responsibility for the House to undertake under the Constitution, and the House, in the 106th Congress, will make that decision. I raised that possibility within the Republican policy luncheon, for conversation and counsel from my colleagues. I received a good deal of conversation and counsel from my colleagues, both in that luncheon and subsequent to it, and I have reflected on the matter myself in conversations with my staff. But, as I said, it was within an hour or so after I had made essentially the same statement that I have made here within the policy luncheon that members of the press were after me and some of my colleagues, to say, ``Is Senator Bennett going to offer a motion of censure with respect to the President of the United States?'' I told those reporters, as I indicated earlier, that I would give them their answer today. The answer is no, Senator Bennett will not be offering a motion of censure, for two reasons. First, there are some who would interpret that motion of censure as an attempt to bring this issue to closure. Closure, interestingly enough, is a psychological term, not a legal term. In legal terms, you come to guilty or innocent; you come to ``case closed,'' with a final finding of fact. Closure seems to be a psychological term where you say the individual is now able to deal with this issue. But, aside from the semantic question involved, I do not want to be a party to any suggestion that the investigation of the President's behavior and the consideration of whether or not that behavior constitutes an impeachable offense should come to an end by virtue of the resolution that I might offer. So, for that first reason, I have concluded that I will not, in fact, offer this resolution. The second reason I have decided not to offer the resolution is because some have suggested that, since the Senate would ultimately be the jury that would try any accusations with respect to impeachment, I should not, as a Member of the Senate, prejudge the case. I can draw a fine line with which I would be comfortable that would say that my resolution of censure, saying that I found this behavior in the three areas I have described to be reprehensible, would not prejudge a determination as to whether that behavior constituted a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution, and I would be comfortable with that distinction. But since there are some who would not be comfortable and who would suggest that by offering the resolution I was prejudging the case, I have also, for that second reason, decided that I will not offer that resolution. That, I hope, Mr. President, clears up, if anybody had any concerns about what I said yesterday in the policy luncheon, what I intend to do. I conclude, however, with this one final thought with respect to this issue. One of the reasons I considered offering the resolution, so that the Senate at least would go on record as making it clear that this behavior was unacceptable, is because I imagined this scenario in the future: Let us suppose that at some point in the future--pick a date, 5 years--the superintendent of West Point, a married man in his early fifties, became involved sexually with a 21-year-old female cadet who had come to his office to bring him coffee. The superintendent maintained a sexual relationship with that female cadet for the next 18 months while she was still within his purview and under some form or other of his control. Other cadets found out about the relationship and began talking about it in the scenario I am describing. The superintendent, let us suppose, adamantly denies that the relationship is going on, recognizing that it is totally inappropriate and wrong. An investigation is opened whereby legally constituted authorities from the Department of Defense check into the rumors. The superintendent attacks the investigator, smears his ability and his integrity, denies absolutely to his own circle of aides that the affair had ever taken place, and allows the impression to go forward throughout the entire community that he is the subject of a witch hunt being undertaken by the Department of Defense. After 7 months of stonewalling, denying and refusing to cooperate, the superintendent is then forced to admit that, No. 1, the relationship did take place; No. 2, he has been lying through the 7 months; and, No. 3, there has been a smearing of the reputation of people of high integrity. I would not want, under that circumstance, to have the superintendent then approach the Department of Defense with a poll showing that 58 percent of the cadets were happy under his superintendency at West Point and say, ``Since the Commander in Chief did something like this 5 years ago and no reprimand of any kind came out of the Congress, why cannot I do exactly the same thing under these circumstances and not have it affect my career?'' I wish the precedent to be laid down that says that this kind of activity, whether it constitutes impeachable offenses or not, cannot go uncommented on in an official way. And just because I have decided that I will not offer this resolution in this Congress at this time for the two reasons I have outlined, I do make it clear, Mr. President, that should the voters of Utah send me back here to serve in the 106th Congress, I will do what I can to give Members of Congress a clear opportunity, regardless of impeachment proceedings, to express their opinion on the behavior of the President of the United States in this circumstance. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT. I understand we will now hear from the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, but I wanted to notify Senators that following Senator McCain's presentation, it will be our intention to move to a vote with relation to the Specter amendment No. 3506 as quickly as possible, so that Senators might know that a vote following Senator McCain's presentation is pending.

Mr. BENNETT. I call for the regular order with respect to the Specter amendment.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act'' and I am pleased to be joined by Senator Hatch in this effort. The San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act not only accomplishes the preservation of an important historic area, but it is the result of a collaborative approach among Federal land managers, state and local governments and other concerned agencies and organizations. This revised legislation incorporates several of the suggestions of the Administration, the House and those who originally expressed concerns about the bill as introduced in the House. The legislation we introduce today is the result of months of discussions between the Bureau of Land Management, the citizens of Emery County and Members of Congress. It is a good-faith effort to initiate what we hope will bring resolution to the larger philosophical differences between land management practices in Utah. With a little luck, we might even begin a process which could lead to a resolution to the ongoing Utah wilderness debate. The San Rafael Swell region in the State of Utah was one of America's last frontiers. I have in my office, a map of the State of Utah drafted in 1876 in which large portions of the San Rafael Swell were simply left blank because they were yet to be explored. Visitors who comment on this map are amazed when they see that large portions of the San Rafael area remained unmapped thirty years after the Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. This area is known for its important historical sites, notable tradition of mining, widely recognized paleontological resources, and numerous recreational opportunities. As such, it needs to be protected. The San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area created through this legislation will be approximately 630,000 acres in size and will comprise wilderness, a Bighorn Sheep Management Area, a scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and Semi-Primitive Area of Non- Motorized Use. The value of the new management structure for the National Conservation Area can be found in the flexibility it gives in addressing a broad array of issues from the protection of critical lands to the oversight of recreational uses. The San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act sets aside 130,000 acres as BLM wilderness lands. It permanently removes the threat of mining, oil drilling, and timbering from the Swell. It also sets aside a conservation area of significant size to protect Utah's largest herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Vehicle travel is restricted to designated roads and trails in other areas and visitors recreational facilities are provided. Finally, it will assist the BLM and the local communities in developing a long term strategy to preserve the history and heritage of the region through the National Heritage Area. Careful study of the bill shows that the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is a multidimensional management plan for an area with multidimensional needs. It provides comprehensive protection and management for an entire ecosystem. My colleagues in the House have worked hard to address the concerns of the Administration and they have made several changes to the House version as introduced in an effort to improve the legislation. We have redrawn maps, eliminated roads from wilderness areas, eliminated cherry stems of other roads and increased the size of wilderness and semi- primitive areas. Specifically, by including new provisions dealing with the Compact and Heritage Plan, the new language ensures that the resources found in the county will be properly surveyed and understood prior to the Heritage Area moving forward. With regards to the Conservation Area, bill language guarantees that the management plan will not impair any of the important resources within the Swell. We have also included new language that ensures the Secretary of Interior is fully represented on the Advisory Council. The San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is unique in that it sets the San Rafael Swell apart from Utah's other national parks and monuments. It protects not only the important lands in this area but also another resource just as precious--its captivating history and heritage. This bill is an example of how a legislative solution can result from a grassroots effort involving both state and local government officials, the BLM, historical preservation groups, and wildlife enthusiasts. Most important, it takes the necessary steps to preserve the wilderness value of these lands. This legislation has broad statewide and local support. It is sound, reasonable, and innovative in its approach to protecting and managing the public land treasures of the San Rafael Swell. Finally, it is based on the scientific methods of ecosystem management and prevents the fracturing of large areas of multiple use lands with small parcels of wilderness interspersed between. Mr. President, I will conclude with this point; the wilderness debate in Utah has gone on too long. My colleagues will be reminded that in the last Congress, the debate centered around whether two million acres or 5.7 million acres were the proper amount of wilderness to designate. We are now trying to protect more than 600,000 acres in one county in Utah alone. The Emery County Commissioners should be commended for their foresight and vision in preparing this proposal. I hope that this legislation can become a model for future conflict resolutions. Unfortunately, the shouting match over acreage has often drowned out the discussion over what types of protection were in order for these lands. I doubt that there are few people who would debate the need to protect these lands. But too often in the past we have argued over the definition of what constitutes ``protection.'' Unfortunately for some groups, a certain designation is the only method of acceptable protection. I urge those groups to look beyond the trees and see the forest for a change. Should these groups decide to come to the table, lend their considerable expertise to our efforts and try to reach a consensus, the first steps toward resolving the decades-old wilderness debate in Utah will have been taken. I hope my colleagues will carefully review this legislation and support for this bill.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I introduce, by request of President Bill Clinton, the Administration's ``Good Samaritan'' legislation referred to as the ``Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act''. I want to thank the White House for joining Vice Chairman Dodd and the rest of the members of the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem in the debate on how to promote the flow of information on Year 2000 readiness throughout the private sector. The Administration's recognition of this problem, the fear of law suits and its stifling effect on companies' willingness to disclose helpful Y2K information, is invaluable in helping all of us deal with this national crisis. The existing legal framework clearly discourages the sharing of critical information between private sector companies. The President's bill attempts to limit the legal liability of corporations and other organizations who in good faith openly share information about computer and technology processing problems and related matters in connection with the transition to the Year 2000. We welcome the thoughtful ideas of the White House and the hard work of the Office of Management and Budget, as well John Koskinen, the Chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. President Clinton's proposal represents a good starting point from which to begin the process of addressing the critical need for private sector information sharing announced in his speech before the National Sciences Foundation on Tuesday, July 14. The Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, which I chair, has to date held hearings on Year 2000 problems in several industry sectors including energy utilities, financial institutions, and health care. This Friday, July 31, the Committee will hold its fourth hearing the subject of which will be the telecommunications industry. In each of the prior hearings, it has become increasingly evident that the fear of legal liability has proven to be the single biggest deterrent to the open sharing of Year 2000 information. With just over 500 days remaining before the Year 2000 problem manifests itself in full, we must do everything we can to encourage the sharing of vital Year 2000 information. Through this sharing, organizations can save valuable time and resources in addressing their Year 2000 problems. But, we must be careful to pass meaningful legislation that will indeed encourage disclosure and sharing of Year 2000 information. For example, small companies which cannot afford to do all of their own testing and who, for the most part, are not as knowledgeable about where the dangers of the Y2K bug may appear are significant elements of our economy and their Y2K failures could have devastating impacts on those who depend on their services. We look forward to hearing the input of those companies and individuals who are affected both as plaintiffs and defendants. To be of value, we must pass legislation this year. To that end, we will be working closely with the administration, and with Senators Hatch and Leahy of the Judiciary Committee which has the primary jurisdiction for this legislation.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act'' and I am pleased to be joined by Senator Hatch in this effort. The San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act not only accomplishes the preservation of an important historic area, but it is the result of a collaborative approach among Federal land managers, state and local governments and other concerned agencies and organizations. This revised legislation incorporates several of the suggestions of the Administration, the House and those who originally expressed concerns about the bill as introduced in the House. The legislation we introduce today is the result of months of discussions between the Bureau of Land Management, the citizens of Emery County and Members of Congress. It is a good-faith effort to initiate what we hope will bring resolution to the larger philosophical differences between land management practices in Utah. With a little luck, we might even begin a process which could lead to a resolution to the ongoing Utah wilderness debate. The San Rafael Swell region in the State of Utah was one of America's last frontiers. I have in my office, a map of the State of Utah drafted in 1876 in which large portions of the San Rafael Swell were simply left blank because they were yet to be explored. Visitors who comment on this map are amazed when they see that large portions of the San Rafael area remained unmapped thirty years after the Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. This area is known for its important historical sites, notable tradition of mining, widely recognized paleontological resources, and numerous recreational opportunities. As such, it needs to be protected. The San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area created through this legislation will be approximately 630,000 acres in size and will comprise wilderness, a Bighorn Sheep Management Area, a scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and Semi-Primitive Area of Non- Motorized Use. The value of the new management structure for the National Conservation Area can be found in the flexibility it gives in addressing a broad array of issues from the protection of critical lands to the oversight of recreational uses. The San Rafael National Heritage and Conservation Act sets aside 130,000 acres as BLM wilderness lands. It permanently removes the threat of mining, oil drilling, and timbering from the Swell. It also sets aside a conservation area of significant size to protect Utah's largest herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Vehicle travel is restricted to designated roads and trails in other areas and visitors recreational facilities are provided. Finally, it will assist the BLM and the local communities in developing a long term strategy to preserve the history and heritage of the region through the National Heritage Area. Careful study of the bill shows that the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is a multidimensional management plan for an area with multidimensional needs. It provides comprehensive protection and management for an entire ecosystem. My colleagues in the House have worked hard to address the concerns of the Administration and they have made several changes to the House version as introduced in an effort to improve the legislation. We have redrawn maps, eliminated roads from wilderness areas, eliminated cherry stems of other roads and increased the size of wilderness and semi- primitive areas. Specifically, by including new provisions dealing with the Compact and Heritage Plan, the new language ensures that the resources found in the county will be properly surveyed and understood prior to the Heritage Area moving forward. With regards to the Conservation Area, bill language guarantees that the management plan will not impair any of the important resources within the Swell. We have also included new language that ensures the Secretary of Interior is fully represented on the Advisory Council. The San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act is unique in that it sets the San Rafael Swell apart from Utah's other national parks and monuments. It protects not only the important lands in this area but also another resource just as precious--its captivating history and heritage. This bill is an example of how a legislative solution can result from a grassroots effort involving both state and local government officials, the BLM, historical preservation groups, and wildlife enthusiasts. Most important, it takes the necessary steps to preserve the wilderness value of these lands. This legislation has broad statewide and local support. It is sound, reasonable, and innovative in its approach to protecting and managing the public land treasures of the San Rafael Swell. Finally, it is based on the scientific methods of ecosystem management and prevents the fracturing of large areas of multiple use lands with small parcels of wilderness interspersed between. Mr. President, I will conclude with this point; the wilderness debate in Utah has gone on too long. My colleagues will be reminded that in the last Congress, the debate centered around whether two million acres or 5.7 million acres were the proper amount of wilderness to designate. We are now trying to protect more than 600,000 acres in one county in Utah alone. The Emery County Commissioners should be commended for their foresight and vision in preparing this proposal. I hope that this legislation can become a model for future conflict resolutions. Unfortunately, the shouting match over acreage has often drowned out the discussion over what types of protection were in order for these lands. I doubt that there are few people who would debate the need to protect these lands. But too often in the past we have argued over the definition of what constitutes ``protection.'' Unfortunately for some groups, a certain designation is the only method of acceptable protection. I urge those groups to look beyond the trees and see the forest for a change. Should these groups decide to come to the table, lend their considerable expertise to our efforts and try to reach a consensus, the first steps toward resolving the decades-old wilderness debate in Utah will have been taken. I hope my colleagues will carefully review this legislation and support for this bill.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I simply have to respond to the notion that this is an amendment to fire the incumbent general counsel. That is what we were told in the last debate. That assumes that the present general counsel does not enjoy bipartisan support. That assumes that the present general counsel has conducted himself in such a way that he cannot gather the necessary four votes. I have no knowledge that that is indeed the case. But if it is indeed the case, it is a strong argument for saying that the present general counsel probably should not be in his job. If he cannot muster bipartisan support to hold this job, we have a situation where he is obviously supporting one party over the other in order to maintain those three votes. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the argument made by the Senator from Wisconsin who claims this is an attempt to fire the incumbent general counsel. There is nothing in here that says this is an attempt to fire the incumbent general counsel. It simply says the incumbent general counsel has to enjoy bipartisan support. And if he is as wonderful and as bipartisan as the Senator from Wisconsin says he is, he has nothing to fear from this amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, my understanding of the actions and activities of the FEC up to this point indicate that it is an agency badly in need of reform, and I am delighted that the term limits have been enacted. It is also my understanding that because of its past history, some Commissioners of the FEC have been less than diligent in their duties and, as a result, the power to run the Commission has devolved to the staff. When we debate term limits generally, we are often told that one of the reasons we should oppose term limits is because it will put too much power in the hands of the staff. The staff becomes the permanent and institutional memory of the body, while those who are supposed to run it keep cycling through on term limits. I think it entirely appropriate that we give the new Commissioners, as their terms expire, the opportunity to act affirmatively on the staff and not allow the power of inertia to keep staff members in forever and forever. It is a logical thing to do, and I am happy to support it and happy to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I accept that correction.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me give you a little history as I see it with respect to this bill and why this amendment, in my view, makes sense. We are here because the Supreme Court has ruled that the NCUA, the regulatory body dealing with credit unions, has been misapplying the law since 1982. The Supreme Court in response to lawsuits that were brought before it has ruled that credit unions have grown in violation of the law, or have engaged in actions that are a violation of the law since 1982. Since those credit unions were following the dictates of the NCUA, their regulator, it would be unfair to penalize the credit unions; they were playing by the rules as they understood them. And when the rulemaker itself was the agency that was making a mistake, it is not fair to penalize the people who followed those rules. But we have to change the rules if they have been improperly applied, and that is what the result of the Supreme Court decision has presented us. We have decided, as a Congress, that we are going to change the rules, that we are going to now codify that which has been done since 1982, and I think it is right and proper that we do so. I am in favor of doing that, however much that may disappoint the banks that were hoping that with the winning of this lawsuit they could turn the clock back to 1982. But we cannot. We must say that those who have appropriately opened accounts at credit unions will have those accounts protected, and that we will not turn the clock back that many years. As we have done this, we have raised the maximum size of an employee group which is eligible to affiliate into a multiple common bond credit union from 500 to 3,000. That is a sixfold increase, and the 3,000 employee threshold encompasses 99 percent of all businesses in America. There are only 16 private companies in my entire State that employ more than 3,000 people. So this is a major step forward to support and encourage the credit union movement, and I believe it is the real heart of the bill that is before us, and I support this activity. But in the process of dealing with the Supreme Court ruling and making the change about the maximum size of employee groups, the Banking Committee has taken a look at the credit union situation overall and has come to the conclusion, rightly in my view, that in order to protect the safety and soundness of credit unions, there should be a limit on the amount of commercial loans that credit unions make. The only controversy that we have with respect to the amendment before us is not should there be such a limit but, rather, where should the limit be. As it came out of the committee, the limit was at 12.25 percent of assets, and I supported that. But I recognized that it needed to be looked at more carefully, and as I have looked at it more carefully, along with the other Senators who have cosponsored this amendment, I have come to the conclusion that the limit should be slightly less than the 12.25 that was in the bill from the committee. It should be at 7 percent, which is the amount set aside by regulation as to credit union capital. Why the lower amount? Well, there are several reasons. One of them that Senator Hagel has already addressed has to do with safety and soundness and the experience in other States, specifically Rhode Island that had some serious difficulties. We don't want a repeat of those difficulties, and a lower limit is a greater bulwark against those difficulties than the one which is higher. I am interested that the telephone calls we get in our office as this amendment gets talked about out in the credit union world almost always follow the same dialog. They say, ``Why is Senator Bennett proposing an amendment that the credit unions don't like? We thought he supported credit unions.'' Then the member of my staff answering the call said, ``Senator Bennett is supporting an amendment that would put a limit on commercial loans.'' Then the caller said, ``But credit unions don't make commercial loans.'' Which then puts us in the position to say, ``If that in fact is true, why do you object to a limit?" Most credit union people who talked to me believe that credit unions make loans only to individuals. And the credit unions that have come to see me from the State of Utah have all stressed the fact that commercial lending is a very small percentage of their business. Indeed, they say, ``No, we do not go above 5 percent of our total capital involved in commercial loans.'' And, to them I say, once again, ``If you don't go above 5 percent, why would you object to a limit that is at 7 percent? You can continue to do exactly what you are doing under the Hagel amendment, with no difficulty.'' Then, finally, one of them who was seized with a burst of candor cornered me when I was in the State this last time and said, ``We want to grow our commercial loan business, and if you put in the 7 percent cap that you are talking about, we will hit that within a matter of months. We are growing very rapidly. We want the cap higher so we can grow beyond that level.'' This gentleman--and I use the word ``gentleman" appropriately, because he certainly was in the way he handled himself in our conversation--has, as his background, a career in commercial banking. He, for reasons good and sufficient unto himself, decided he was going to leave the bank that he had worked at most of his life and go to work for a credit union. Naturally, the thing he wanted to do with his new employer is use his skills to the very best advantage. And since his whole history is in growing commercial loans at the bank for which he had worked, he decided he would now work to grow commercial loans in the credit union where he worked. And he has been very successful. The credit union portfolio of commercial loans under his direction is growing rapidly, growing rapidly to the point that, as I say, if you put a cap at the 7 percent we are talking about with this amendment, his credit union will hit that within a matter of months. And he said, ``Can't you stick with the 12.25 percent that came out of the committee, because we will not hit that for maybe a year or so?" So, as I said, the issue is not, should we have a cap; the issue is only where should it be. And, because he wants, naturally and properly, to see the amount of portfolio that he is overseeing grow to as big an amount as it possibly can, he wants the cap to be as high as it can. I am very sympathetic to him and, to be honest, I don't think there is a safety and soundness problem in his institution. I think he is properly trained as a banker, so that he can handle commercial loans in a credit union atmosphere and do very well. But the public policy issue that we have to decide here on this floor is, do we want credit unions in that kind of business in a major way? The 12.25 percent limit in the bill that came out of the committee answers that question, ``Yes.'' That is a fairly major involvement for credit unions. And we run the risk of having those who are not equipped with former commercial bankers, like the man who talked with me, going up to that limit and endangering the savings and the assets of their other members. One of the aspects of the amendment that is before us to which credit union representatives object says that, if you are going to make commercial loans, you have to have someone in your organization who has at least 2 years of business lending experience--in other words, someone like the man who came to see me while I was back in Utah, who clearly had plenty of years' experience. Again, I am interested that credit union representatives object to this requirement at the same time they insist they are not in the business of making commercial loans. You cannot have it both ways. If, indeed, you want to get in commercial lending in a big way, you ought to have the requirement that you have someone with experience in commercial lending in a big way. You can't say, ``We want a higher limit for the amount of commercial lending we can do, but we want no requirement that we have anybody around who understands commercial lending.'' This is a recipe for the kind of thing that the Senator from Nebraska has described as already happening in some States. So, I come back to the basic issue before us: What should be the proper public policy role of credit unions in the financial services mix? I believe credit unions have earned an honored place in that mix. I believe they have demonstrated for the last 60 years that they provide a vital function and that they should be encouraged to continue that vital function, and, indeed, in that function they should be encouraged to grow, and we should create a circumstance in which they can grow and prosper. I believe that this bill does that. But the policy question is, Should we as a Congress, while fixing the problems created by the Supreme Court decision, at the same time encourage them to grow in a field where, by their own statements and admissions, they have not been in the past? Should we use this bill setting aside a Supreme Court decision as the vehicle to encourage new ventures on the part of credit unions that are ill equipped for those ventures? I think the answer is no, we should not. And, therefore, after studying the matter between markup and the full committee and the floor, I join with Senator Hagel in saying the limit level should be lower rather than higher with respect to the amount of involvement credit unions should have in commercial lending. I don't understand why they object to the lower level, because they themselves tell me, ``We are not interested in commercial lending. That is not our bread and butter. That is not our area of expertise. That is not what we are doing.'' And then I say, ``Then why do you object if we put a situation in place that keeps you in your traditional area?'' Finally, I share this one last thought with you, Mr. President. With respect to how important this amendment is to credit unions, in the May 29 National Journal's Congress Daily, the NAFCU vice president, Pat Keefe, is quoted as saying, ``From our point of view, this is not major.'' Mr. Keefe was referring to an amendment that would have imposed tighter restrictions than the one we are talking about. I think he speaks for the vast majority of credit union members who have been in touch with my offices. This is not major for them. I think it is significant for the community banks. I think it is a responsible decision for us to take. Let me make it clear, if we do not agree to this amendment, I will still support the bill, as I did in the committee, where it had a limit at 12.25 percent. Just because I think the 7 percent is more prudent does not mean that I think this is a deal killer. So, in that sense I guess I am signaling, ``This is not major.'' But, to me, it is major because it is a demonstration of where the public policy ought to be with respect to the thrust and main direction of the credit union movement. They think it is not major. To me, it is. I hope we agree to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. They underscore my earlier statement that the issue here is not, should we have a limit on commercial lending, but rather, where should it be and what should its terms be? I agree with the Senator from Maryland that the committee did, indeed, address this; did come to the conclusion there should be some limits on commercial lending, and reached a compromise position that made it possible for us to unanimously report the bill with this limit in it.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Maryland that the bill does represent a significant step forward in the regulatory framework with credit unions. I think his clarifying remarks are correct and welcome. The point I was making, which I think is still a valid one, is from the standpoint of the consumer, from the standpoint of the credit union member. The great angst on the part of credit union members, when the Supreme Court decision came down, was reflected in their visits with me repeatedly in my office. It was that: We are going to lose everything we have and you must pass this bill to protect what we have. I heard that over and over again in town meetings throughout the State of Utah, and over and over from people who called. From the standpoint of the credit union member, they are pleading for legislation that says: Let us keep what we have. Do not allow this decision to take away from us that which we have come to enjoy and get benefit from. My reference was to the reaction on the part of the consumer and the credit union member rather than on the part of the regulator. I think what we have done in the committee does that and, at the same time, as the Senator from Maryland points out, creates some stability for the credit union situation that was not there prior to this act.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to make a personal comment about the tragedy that occurred in this building on Friday and add my voice to those that have been raised in tribute to the professionalism, the courage, and the compassion of the members of the Capitol Police Force. I remember, when I first came to Washington as an intern in 1950 as a student from the university, the Capitol Police Force was affectionately referred to as the ``campus cops.'' It was a patronage job, and people who served on the Capitol Police Force in those days were appointed by their Senators. Usually, they were law students who were going to school at George Washington University that taught the entire curriculum at night. So the Capitol Police could earn their way through law school by sitting at their various stations in the Capitol during the daytime and taking their classes at night. One of the more prominent attorneys in Salt Lake City got his law degree that way and said he did all of his studying at his desk as a Capitol policeman and commented, ``If I had ever been called upon to draw my weapon, I wouldn't have known what to do. I would have been scared to death if anybody had ever confronted me in my position as a policeman.'' That was the situation 40, 45 years ago. The professionalism of those who did draw their weapons and handled them expertly in the crisis that occurred last Friday demonstrates how far we have come and how great a debt those of us who labor here, hopefully doing the people's business, have to those who have produced that kind of professionalism and produced that kind of change from what we once had. It is a sad commentary that we need this kind of professional force and we don't have the kind of society that could get by with ``campus cops'' of the kind that were here that many years ago, but it is comforting to know, in the face of that need, we have people of the caliber that we do have serve us. I add my voice to those that have been raised in tribute to those who serve us in that capacity. tribute to officers chestnut and gibson