Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Does the Senator from Massachusetts ask me to yield further for an additional comment? If he does, I will be happy to do so.

Mr. BENNETT. If I may finish. At the same time, my experience in the last campaign is that when there were ads attacking me, I found that the general public did not pay any attention to them and did not care. But my own troops all panicked until I was able to get back on television and answer those ads. And they heaved a gigantic sigh of relief. By the same token, I am told by my opponent's people--Utah is a small enough State that virtually all the politicians talk to each other, particularly when the campaign is over--that it was one of my ads puncturing my opponent's attack on me that took all the starch out of their door-to-door grassroots organization. The former chairman of the Democratic State committee said, ``I was shaving in the morning, feeling good about the campaign. We were closing the gap on you. Our attacks were taking hold. I had the radio on and heard your voice come on on the radio. At the end of 60 seconds, I said, `It's all over. He has just punctured our balloon. There's no way we can get anybody going again.' '' So, these things play hand in hand. Everyone has his or her own experience in it. We come back to the basic posture that I took. We, as candidates, should be in charge of our campaigns. We, as candidates, should make the decision as to what is said, when it is said, how it is said. We should make the decision whether we use grassroots or television or radio or billboards or handbills or newspapers. Those around us who want to get into it should be free to make their own decisions in that regard. The heavy hand of the Federal Government should not be in that circumstance saying, ``This group can; that group cannot. And 61 days is OK; 60 days is not. The public is not smart enough to sort through all of this and make their own decisions. We must regulate how the money is raised. We must regulate how it is spent.'' I am perfectly content to have the Federal Government regulate from whom it is raised. I think the ban we have had on corporate contributions since Mark Hannah's days is legitimate. In terms of direct contributions to candidates, I think that is a legitimate restriction which we have had in this country for longer than I am old. I have no problem with that. I am perfectly willing to have the Federal Government involved in requiring full disclosure so that everybody knows if I take money from Fred Thompson, I am going to have to answer for that, that everybody knows what I am doing. I have no problem with that. But I have serious, serious fundamental problems, in terms of my devotion to the Constitution, people who know me know on the floor how strongly I feel about this--I think we are treading on very, very sacred ground when we say the Federal Government is going to start to make these kinds of decisions for candidates and groups and ordinary Americans, and it is going to do it in a way that carries the full punitive power of the Federal Government behind it. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BENNETT. Let me yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, and then I will come back to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BENNETT. I believe the Senator is partly right. I think either that would be the likelihood, that a group would be deprived of its right to exercise free speech in that area, or another equally likely outcome, in my view, is that the outcry from the group over the injunction would be sufficiently significant in the press that it would override any discussion of substantive issues from that point forward and the last 60 days of the campaign would be spent bickering over whether or not the group really should or should not have had that right. Either way, it distorts the political dialog in a way I find corrosive and damaging to the intent of the Constitution.

Mr. BENNETT. I can respond to the two questions by my friend from Massachusetts. Yes; there is clearly. The answer to his first one, an attempt to define the difference between issue advocacy and express advocacy in terms of a candidate, how that would play out under McCain-Feingold in terms of the 60-day rule is still very troubling to me and, in my view, does indeed cross over the line and become censorship. Now, as to his second question, this is a matter of political experience. Obviously, every Member of this Chamber has his or her own political experience to draw back on. I will only comment in terms of my own, that I am known in Utah as a politician who believes perhaps more strongly than any other in the importance of grassroots organization. I am currently spending all the money that I am currently raising in building such an organization. Some of the people who work for the Senator from Kentucky under the other hat he wears as chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee are a little disturbed that I do not have more money left in the coffers from the amount I have raised, and where has its gone? It is going right now into building a precinct-by-precinct, voting- district-by-voting-district campaign organization so that if I have no money for television, I have at least one person for every 10 or 20 households who will go out and knock on doors on my behalf. I am building that organization right now. I believe in that fundamentally. However, my personal experience says that I cannot energize these folks without some ads on television. I can give them all the letters, I can give them all the phone calls, I can tell them all how wonderful they are, but until they see something on the screen, they are not convinced I am a serious candidate.

Mr. BENNETT. May I correct that? I said you cannot control the total amount of money. You can control where it flows.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Kentucky for that additional information. Let me go back to the three points made by the Senator from Arizona: Must be bipartisan--I agree, this is bipartisan. Two, must lessen the amount of money overall in politics--if the experts that have testified before our committee are correct, and I believe they are, in a free society that is simply an impossible goal. You can disclose it, and I think we should; you should shine as much light, sunshine, exposure as you can, and I think we should. You should do things about getting people better informed of what is going on, and I think we should. I am perfectly willing to talk about amending the current laws to go in that direction. But you should not kid yourself that in a free society, somehow Government can control the total amount of money people want to spend in political advocacy. So we come to the third principle, laid down by the Senator from Arizona, that there must be a meaningful campaign finance reform, which is we must level the playing field between challenger and incumbent. We must help the challenger. I have already made the point, and will make it again, that the best way you can help the challenger in the field of money is to allow the challenger to raise more money than the incumbent. If you level the playing field and say to the challenger--my own example again repeated--you cannot raise any more money than the incumbent, but the incumbent starts out with all of the name recognition, all of the years of going to Rotary Clubs and bar mitzvahs, all of the staff paid for by the taxpayer available to him, all of the record of answering letters and doing favors and congressional constituent service, and you can't spend any more to try to overcome that advantage in the name of campaign finance reform, you have decapitated the challenger and guaranteed that the incumbent is going to get reelected in virtually every circumstance.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the assumption is that it would be an advantage to incumbents because it would give them freedom from criticism by an outside group in that period. My sense of smell tells me the outside group would, even under McCain-Feingold, probably find some way to try to get around that. For example, as I understand the Senator from Arizona, he said there can be no criticism by name of a candidate, so perhaps the outside group would say, ``The Congressman from the Third Congressional District of Utah is terrible, but we didn't name him.''

Mr. BENNETT. An agency of the Federal Government would decide what was permissible and what was not on the 60th day.

Mr. BENNETT. I yield for another comment.

Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to.

Mr. BENNETT. May I respond to my friend, and then I see the Senator from Kentucky wants to get into this. In the first place, I think we ought to wait for some experience from these cities and States as to what happens before we rush to Federal legislation on the basis of the bills that they have passed. I think it is salutary that the States are being used as a lab, to see what works and what does not. I don't know that there has been any constitutional challenge to any one of these statutes yet. I would expect there would be. And I would like to have the reasoning of the courts before us before I rush to Federal legislation. Then, as I said, I would like to have some on-the-ground experience to see how it really works. If I may give a separate kind of example, in the State of Utah we allow corporate contributions for statewide races--Governor, attorney general, Lieutenant Governor, what have you. There has not been a hint of scandal. There is no outcry to stop that. And we have had a series of outstanding Governors, both Democrats as well as Republicans, every one of whom has been a man of highest rectitude. So, if you are going to look for a local example of something that works, you could say, based on my State's experience, that we ought to open the whole thing up and let corporate contributions come in as well as individual contributions. The one thing that we do have in Utah that has made it work is full and complete disclosure so that everybody knows that, if the Utah Power and Light Company has given to X campaign, that is on the public record. And when the Governor goes to deal with utility regulation, everybody knows how much the power company gave him.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Kentucky for that additional information about this particular issue. Mr. President, I want to end as I began by expressing my deep concern over this whole attempt to tiptoe into the area of free expression in a free society regarding political activity and political speech. I know it is frustrating to see large amounts of money come into a campaign. I have heard my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, tell of his personal experience when Buckley versus Valeo was handed down, where he was in a Senate race with the man who became Senator Heinz. The story ends well because Senator Specter became Senator Specter as well, but not in that race. He, Senator Specter, was running the campaign. There were spending limits. Buckley versus Valeo struck those limits down in terms of an individual American being allowed to spend whatever amount of money he wanted to spend in expressing his own point of view. As Senator Specter said, ``Senator Heinz had virtually unlimited resources and I did not. And Senator Heinz put those resources into the race and I was prohibited.'' ``Now,'' says Senator Specter, ``my brother had enough money to fund my campaign, but my brother was forbidden to put that money into the campaign and, therefore, I was at an unfair disadvantage to John Heinz.'' My solution to that would be let his brother put the money in the campaign. If we are going to level the playing field, and Heinz has x amount of money that he can put in and Senator Specter has a brother who has x amount of money he can put in, in the spirit of the decision just described by the Senator from Kentucky, I would have no problem with saying, OK, let Senator Specter's brother put it in, let's level the playing field by letting both sides spend. Now, if Senator Specter's brother put it in, it darn well better be disclosed where he got the money, where it came from and let people ask the question: What did Arlen Specter's brother expect to get in return if Arlen Specter took enough money from him to match John Heinz? Or to put it in a more contemporary circumstance, we see in the Presidential situation where we have these kinds of limits, in this last election, Jack Kemp wanted to run for President. Those of us who know Jack and can read his body language could tell he was anxious to run for President. He looked at the fundraising problem that he faced under the present limitations, and he said, ``I can't physically do it. I have to go out and raise this much money at $1,000 apiece. I can't physically stand the wear and tear.'' Sitting at Jack Kemp's elbow, figuratively, was somebody who believed in everything Jack Kemp believed in. His name is Steve Forbes. Steve Forbes could have funded a Kemp campaign for President without noticing it. But under the circumstances in which we currently are operating, Steve Forbes is forbidden to do that. So, ultimately, what did he do? He ran for President himself. At some point in this debate, I will have some comments about that, too, and what happened with that injection of money coming from Steve Forbes. But wouldn't it be a better kind of system if Steve Forbes could say, ``Jack, you're better known than I am, you have more experience in this arena than I do, you probably have a better chance of making it, you represent the same ideas I feel strongly about, here's a check for $15 million; go to it, Jack.'' The first question that Jack would have been asked is, ``What did you promise Steve Forbes in order to get $15 million?'' And that might be a very embarrassing question for Jack to answer. Indeed, Jack might say, ``Steve, I'm not going to take your money because I don't want to have to answer that question.'' But that is the kind of openness and honesty that I think would make the system a whole lot better than what we are talking about here.

Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for an example that I think makes my point. You made the decision, your opponent made the decision, and you are in control in this circumstance of the amount of money that is spent. What McCain-Feingold does is take that decision out of your hands and put it in the hands of the bureaucracy. When I say you can't control the amount of money, I should be more specific. You can't control it by Government fiat. You certainly can control it in terms of what happens in your own campaign, just as I made the decision in my campaign that there would be no negative ads. I refused to run any ads attacking my opponent. But I would oppose any Government rule that would say to me I could not make a different decision if I wanted to. And I would oppose any Government regulation that would say that you and Governor Weld could not have made that decision on the basis that you wanted to, instead of there being more particulars that would be imposed upon you by Federal law that would say, ``Well, you have come fairly close but we are going to put this regulation and that regulation on top of the decision that the two of you jointly made.'' I applaud you for what you did. I think every campaign would be better off if the candidates could sit down in advance and make that kind of a deal. But I want every deal to be a separate deal, made by separate candidates, rather than dictated from this Chamber.

Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am pleased to report that the House and Senate conferees reached an agreement on funding for the legislative branch for the fiscal year 1998. The agreement we reached provides for total spending of slightly under $2.5 billion--an increase of 2 percent over the fiscal year 1997 level and a decrease of 6 percent from the President's budget. Before we begin, I would like to state for the record that the issue of pay for Members of Congress is not in this bill. However, there were significant differences in the amount of funding in the House and Senate bills. The House wanted to limit the growth of the legislative branch to the fiscal year 1997 level exclusive of Senate items. The Senate had made a commitment to the General Accounting Office--a commitment which was made when Senator Mack chaired this subcommittee and oversaw a 25-percent reduction in GAO. This was a 25-percent reduction in their budget and a 33-percent reduction in staff. I participated in the decision to reduce the agency, and I was also a party to the Senate's commitment to stabilize the agency once it made the reduction. Senator Dorgan shared my desire to meet that commitment. I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his hard work, and interest in the bill. It was only with his strong support that we were able to provide adequate funding--a $7 million increase in direct appropriations plus and increase of $1.5 million in offsetting receipts over the fiscal year 1997 level. The Federal Government will spend almost $1.7 trillion next year. The legislative branch has the responsibility to oversee this budget and make sure that taxpayer funds are being spent wisely. GAO is responsible for identifying wasteful Federal spending and recommending ways in which we can save billions of dollars. This past year GAO has identified $6 billion in measurable savings in the Federal Government. That does not include other savings which cannot be measured in dollars--such as better organization, ways in which an agency can better serve taxpayers, etc. For every $1 appropriated to GAO, they have identified $50 savings. This is an agency which is worth the investment. Maintenance was another issue in this bill. I believe strongly in the need to invest in maintenance. Saving a small amount of money now on maintenance will only result in higher costs in the future. I learned in business that if you do not properly maintain your building and equipment you will soon find yourself spending much more money to replace those items which have crumbled or can no longer function. There are a number of maintenance and security items which the Senate identified as priorities such as, repairs to the Library of Congress roof, investment in the Capitol powerplant, and Capitol security. Funding for the Joint Committee on Taxation was also an issue. The Senate conferees agreed at the strong urging of the House conferees to split the difference between the House and Senate bills resulting in an increase of $91,500 over the Senate bill. For many years now the Joint Committee on Taxation has operated as an extension of the Finance and Ways and Means committees. Members of Congress who are not members of those committees have not been able to get revenue estimates for their proposals. Without the revenue estimates, it is almost impossible to go to the floor to offer an amendment to a tax bill. We have been assured by the House that Congressman Archer--the current chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation is committed to working harder to provide to Senators and Representatives revenue estimates in a timely fashion. It is our intent to ensure that the Joint Committee on Taxation assists all Members of Congress. Included in the statement of managers on page 26 of the conference report is language identifying the scope of the assistance we expect the Joint Committee to provide to Members. During the course of the next year, I would like to hear from my colleagues if they are finding the Joint Committee to be helpful. In reaching this agreement, the Senate came down $37 million in budget authority and the House went up $24 million. I am comfortable that the legislative branch will be able to meet its oversight responsibilities with the funding provided in this agreement. Again, I would like to thank Senator Dorgan as the ranking member for his hard work on reaching this agreement. In addition, I would like to thank Senator Steven, Senator Craig and Senator Boxer for their assistance on the subcommittee as well as the following staff: Christine Ciccone, Jim English, Mary Dewald, Mary Hawkins, Chuck Turner, and Chip Yost, for their superior work. I thank my colleagues in advance for their support of the conference report.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the chairman knows, the Forest Service recently completed the consolidation of the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Research Stations in Fort Collins Colorado. I had some serious reservations with this consolidation, but in the interest of reducing the federal budget, I reluctantly agreed to allow the consolidation to proceed. Allow me to share with my colleagues what some of those concerns were. I was concerned that the proposed merger would actually produce the cost savings promised by the Forest Service. I was further concerned that any administrative savings would be offset by increased travel costs of staff traveling to Fort Collins. And since the consolidated center would be responsible for providing research for approximately 60 percent of the nation's forest lands, I was particularly concerned that the new center would have the ability to provide quality services to my constituents once consolidation removed the administrative process one step further from Utah. Finally, I was most concerned that the employees currently stationed in Utah would be jeopardized by consolidation. While I received numerous assurances that no positions will be eliminated in Utah due to consolidation, it was still unclear that the employees based in Utah would continue to have substantive research responsibilities. As I mentioned, despite these reservations, I reluctantly concluded that the merger should proceed. I sought your assurance that the Committee would revisit the consolidation next year to determine if the promised benefits and savings have indeed been realized. If these savings have not been met, I requested that the committee take the appropriate action to rectify the situation. Is it still the Chairman's intent to revisit the consolidation?

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman for his efforts. newfound gap road

Mr. BENNETT. I understand the Chairman's position. The funds provided by the committee are a positive step in improving the conditions at the Montezuma Creek. I think my colleague for the clarification and, once again, appreciate his support for this important project. I also want to thank Senator Hatch for his support and work on this project.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the distinguished Chairman, Senator Gorton, for his support on a matter of particular importance to the Utah Navajo population of San Juan County. The issue involves the Montezuma Creek Health Clinic in Montezuma Creek, UT. For nearly 3 years, my colleague Senator Hatch and I have worked together to improve the delivery of health care services to the residents of San Juan County. This area is located in an extremely remote part of southeastern Utah and is the home of approximately 6,000 Navajos. The Montezuma Creek Clinic is very important to this rural community. However, the existing facility is in extremely poor condition and has undergone numerous repairs. The clinic comprises a patchwork of a mobile trailer connected to a permanent structure which is approximately 40 years old. In an effort to make improvements to the clinic, the committee provided $100,000 for planning and renovation of the existing structure. These funds will be matched by the State of Utah and the Utah Navajo Trust Fund that collectively will provide at least $300,000 for renovation of the facility. However, I do have a question for the Chairman regarding the intent of the committee report language with respect to how these funds can be spent.

Mr. BENNETT. The committee report language on page 98 states: ``The Committee does not intend for any of these funds to be used for facility or program [expansion], but rather, for improvement of existing conditions.'' My concern is over the word ``expansion.'' As a practical matter, the renovation of the facility may result in an expansion of the overall structure. This is especially apparent since the clinic is partially housed in a temporary structure and replacing it may, in fact, increase the overall square footage of the clinic. They clinic's staff also informs me there is a critical need to increase the size of the emergency room as well as add additional examination rooms in order to handle the current heavy caseload. Moreover, in order to comply with Federal and State building codes, some expansion of the facility will be needed. Clearly, these measures are designed to accommodate existing services and, as such, should not be viewed as an expansion per se.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the Chairman to include language regarding the design and engineering of the Trappers Loop Connector Road in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. I want to clarify the intent of this amendment which has been accepted by the Managers of the bill. The language I have included provides $800,000 to the Forest Service to undertake the preliminary design and engineering of a road connecting the Trappers Loop (SR 167) and Snowbasin, the site of the 2002 Winter Olympics Downhill and Super ``G'' ski racing events. This road is identified in their Master Plan as a Phase I project referenced in Public Law 104-333, Section 304. Is it the Chairman's understanding that this language is consistent with the provisions set forth in Public Law 104-333, Section 304?

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I find this debate very illuminating, and I congratulate the Senator from Arizona in bringing an issue to the attention of the Senate that I for one was not aware of. I do not treat lightly the conclusions of the Association for Public Administration who have made their examination of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial. I think it deserves airing. I think the deficiencies that are identified in that report should be discussed, and at some point I may find myself convinced to follow the Senator from Arizona down this particular road if in fact there is not a significant change that would allow at least some objective observers to come to the conclusion that the Memorial was more fittingly fulfilling its mission than apparently it is now. Having said that, I find that I will vote with my subcommittee chairman on this issue for the following reason, based on my own experience in terminating longstanding organizations. When the Republicans took control of the Senate, I found myself on the subcommittee for the legislative branch, chaired by the Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack], and the two of us as a team began to look around the legislative branch to see what there was that we might either cut back or eliminate because it was not performing properly. We focused in on the Office of Technology Assistance, OTA, and, as we spent time looking at OTA, we found that it did a number of very good things. We also found that it was duplicative of a number of very good things that had been done other places in the Government. I was lobbied about as hard on that issue as any issue I can think of by Members, not only of this body, including the Senator who is now the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but also Members of the other body who came at me and said, ``we must hang on to the OTA for all of these good reasons.'' Senator Mack and I agonized over this decision for a long period of time. We examined the record of the OTA. We had the leadership of the OTA come before the subcommittee and we held open hearings, we presented to them our concerns and we gave them every opportunity to respond. Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that the OTA was, indeed, duplicative of that which was being done in the Library of Congress, particularly the Congressional Reference Service, and however good its performance was, we decided that it was redundant and we voted, ultimately, to shut it down. When you take something that has been part of America as long as the Woodrow Wilson Memorial has been, I think you owe it the same kind of opportunity to defend itself through hearings and examinations if, indeed, you are determined to kill it. As a member of the subcommittee before which such hearings would be held, I do not recall that the subject has ever come up prior to the introduction of this matter on the floor. Much as I sympathize with and react to the need for more money in the Indian gang program, and if we can find more money I am more than sympathetic to finding an offset to make it happen, I am reluctant on the basis of a debate on the floor--without a hearing, without an opportunity for these people to come defend themselves, to lay out exactly what they are doing in a full hearing circumstance where they are notified sufficiently in advance and are able to marshal their arguments and their activities--to react to the debate on the floor saying, ``All right, this sounds more logical as a priority than that and so I will vote to eliminate an agency that has been around for, what, 30 years?'' So, for all of my sympathy with my friend from Arizona, and I am reluctant to oppose him because he is usually right and he is very thoughtful and he does not give knee-jerk reactions to these things, I find that I will be with my subcommittee chairman in saying that this is not the kind of thing to do at this late hour in this bill with an amendment on the floor. I would say to my friend from Arizona, if in the next appropriations cycle, which will be upon us so rapidly we will not be able to remember how short the time was, he wants to raise this in the subcommittee, I would support the actions of the subcommittee in having a hearing on this and letting the people from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial come in and respond to the charges that have been made against them by the responsible organization that has examined them. And I will keep an open mind in that circumstance. But I reluctantly part company with my friend from Arizona in this circumstance and at this time, because I do not think it is fair to the people who are involved in the Woodrow Wilson Memorial for the Senate to make this kind of a decision in this rapid circumstance. So, I intend to be with my subcommittee chairman and intend to vote to keep the bill as it is in this regard.