Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Thirty seconds?

Mr. BUMPERS. Anybody who believes that a democracy can survive when the people you elect and the laws you pass depend on how much money is given for the cause are daydreaming. It is dangerous to our system. It is dangerous to our democracy. I plead with my colleagues to vote for cloture on this matter. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to lead off with one of Mo Udall's great statements: Everything that needs to be said has been said but everybody hasn't said it. So I want to get my two cents in before we vote on this measure this afternoon. A moment ago, I said everything about this issue I feel strongly about, except for one thing: While I strongly support this legislation, I also believe that the ultimate solution to this problem is public financing. Unhappily, I will no longer be a member of this distinguished body when this Country and Congress finally comes to its senses and realizes that until we go to public financing, our democracy is simply not going to work. I am reluctant to make an admission today, but I have always prided myself on standing up for things that oftentimes were unpopular but I felt strongly were right. I say to my colleagues, that I believe that one of the things that has sustained me is the reputation of having taken a tough stance from time to time. But since I announced that I would not seek reelection last June, and as I have walked on the Senate floor to vote, I have pondered how much the freedom of not running for reelection has influenced my vote. Now, that being said, I have cast many unpopular votes that have irritated the people of my State, on such subjects as the Panama Canal Treaty, and partial-birth abortion. However, after I announced I wouldn't run again, I have asked myself, How would I vote on this if I were up for reelection and knew I had to raise $3 or $4 million? I believe there isn't a person in this body who can truthfully and frequently say they are willing to take on interest groups. After all, we are supposed to be servants of our constituents. But oftentimes there are interest groups back home we are trying to satisfy because they have a block of votes. We might vote their way. Even if we vote our conscious, the public can never be sure our votes were untainted. The second thing that influences our vote is how our support or opposition will affect our money supply. I saw a comparison in the paper this morning of two PACs, of House and Senate leaders and the amount of money that certain individual groups gave those leaders for their PACs. Staggering amounts of money. I don't care how altruistic it is for ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' it is foolish in the extreme to argue that this is a free speech debate. Mr. President, 94 percent of the people who run for office in this country win if they have more money than their opponents. A lot of good men and women are defeated every year in this country because they are not incumbents and they can't raise money. The people who give the big bucks don't like to give their money to challengers because they start out behind and usually stay behind. Of the 33 Senate races this year, I daresay there will be very, very few changes, in any, of those seats. In almost every instance, the candidate who has the most money and spends the most money will win the election. Sometimes I think about debates. I have the first amendment that we will consider on the Interior bill when we go back to it this afternoon. It is mine, and it is one that the mining industry of this country doesn't like. It is an environmental issue. I will make all of the arguments that I have made on this floor time and again, not only on that amendment but the whole issue of the 1872 mining law, which has been out of date for over 100 years now. God gave us one planet, only one. We don't get a second chance. Incidentally, I have always argued that the No. 1 problem in the world, of course, is population, but you can't argue that here because the first thing you hear is that somebody has converted it into an abortion argument. So we continue to neglect the No. 1 problem in the world; namely, the growing population of the planet. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, ``Help save the planet, kill yourself.'' Clearly, that is a pretty draconian way to save the planet. We ought to be talking sensibly about population growth, as we have been regarding campaign finance reform. I can go on and on about this, and will continue to do so until the taxpayers of this country understand that this is not an issue of free speech. If the American people buy this argument, they are essentially saying, ``I'm willing for somebody else to have more free speech than I do because they have more money.'' As we all know, about 90 percent of the people in this country can't afford to contribute and don't contribute. I had a few more remarks, but I understand the Senator from Georgia is pressed for time. I now yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, John Turner will retire this year after more than twenty-five years of service to the forest products industry. A native of Camden, Arkansas, John is completing a long and distinguished career with the Georgia-Pacific Corporation. John joined Georgia-Pacific Corporation in 1972 as Public Relations Manager for the Crossett, Arkansas, Division. His responsibilities were expanded to include government relations in 1977 for the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas. In 1983, he assumed responsibility for state-level government affairs for the corporation and relocated to Washington, D.C. In his present position as Vice President of Government Affairs, John has directed and coordinated the corporation's Federal and State government affairs staff and legislative policy for the corporation in Washington and in the eight state office locations. In addition to a long association with various entities in the forest products industry, John also had a career in radio and television broadcasting. John was educated at Southern Arkansas University in Magnolia, Arkansas, receiving a degree in communications. Active in forestry and trade associations, John serves on the American Forest and Paper Association's Energy Council and chairs the Endangered Species Reauthorization Committee. John has also served two terms on the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission and one term on the Arkansas Forestry Commission. He is also a member of the Public Relations Society of America. Despite his consuming dedication to his industry, John has made time for numerous civic duties, including work with the Jaycees, Lions Club, Rotary Club, Boys Club of America, and United Way. He has served his local community as a city airport commission member and as a member of the hospital board of directors. Mr. President, I am proud of the association I have had with John Turner over the years. He has been a steadfast friend and a trusted adviser on issues of importance not only to his industry, but to the economy of our beloved State as well. His preparedness, integrity and willingness to compromise have served him and his industry well. I wish John and his lovely wife Jean a long and relaxing retirement. Perhaps John's retirement from his ``day'' job will give them time to more faithfully follow their beloved Razorbacks football and basketball teams, as well as enjoy their two daughters and two granddaughters. Mr. President, John Turner leaves big shoes to fill in the forest products industry. I hope his successors will look to his fine example of the role of the lobbyist and spokesperson in our system.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator be willing to add a requirement that no second-degree amendments be in order? I do not anticipate any. I am just thinking we could save some time.

Mr. BUMPERS. I was thinking, in exchange for a time agreement I thought we could agree that there will be no second-degree amendments. Is that not the case?

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order on the Bumpers amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in order to expedite the passage of this bill, that an amendment that has been cleared on both sides and offered by Senator Hatch and me--that we dispose of that now before I offer the other amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the time being charged equally now?

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do the opponents of the amendment have?

Mr. BUMPERS. No objection.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, this amendment, for the edification of people who didn't hear any of the debate last night, is to make a very minor change in the grand jury system. Now, bear in mind, the grand jury system is about as outdated, as big an anachronism as there is in this country. For openers, all this amendment does is to say that an innocent person who is called before the grand jury--not as a target, not as a defendant, but an absolutely innocent witness, an absolutely innocent witness who is terrified because he or she is appearing before the grand jury for the first time in his or her life, and they know that if they misspeak, if their memory doesn't satisfy the prosecutor, they face the possibility of being charged with perjury. Right now when that innocent person goes to testify before the grand jury, let's make it easy, let's assume, as I did last evening, that it is a Senator's wife; that might be understandable around here. The Senator's wife goes in after having paid some lawyer $5,000 or $10,000 just as a retainer to make sure she doesn't get charged with something for which she is innocent. She goes in and sits in the chair and they start asking her all kinds of personal questions that are totally irrelevant to why she is there: Have you been faithful to your spouse? Do you have a child charged with smoking pot? I understand your daughter is gay. Those things are not stretches of my imagination. But her lawyer is seated outside the door, because under the Federal rules he cannot come into the same room in which his client, the witness, is testifying. Think of that. Think about how we bash China and their criminal justice system and their violation of human rights. That Senator's wife might be called back again tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day. You have seen it happen. All we are saying is, don't make her crawl down off of the witness stand to go outside and talk to her lawyer about how she should answer these questions. If she does that three times, do you know what the grand jury does? They start nudging each other. ``She must be hiding something; she is sure going out to talk to her lawyer a lot.'' That is a woefully inadequate system for a great nation like this. All I am saying, let the lawyer come into the room. The Justice Department opposes this amendment. Now, doesn't that shock you? Of course they oppose it. They are in the business of putting notches on their belt. They want to be able to say this grand jury has never refused to return an indictment that I asked for. A New York judge said, ``Of course, they return those indictments. A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks them to.'' All I am saying, let's follow what 27 States have already done. They have abolished the grand jury system. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry, I didn't understand the distinguished floor manager's request.

Mr. BUMPERS. I object to that. I reserved the remainder of my time.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if you vote no on this amendment, you should be prepared to go home and say to your constituents that you really don't believe in privacy. When we have a law in this country that allows people to tape-record a conversation with you and only they know it is being taped and you don't and that is quite legal, we no longer have any privacy in this country. How do you explain that to your constituents? This bill would make it a criminal offense, as Janet Reno said she favored in Florida, as 15 States have already adopted. We overwhelmingly passed a law to make it a criminal offense to intercept a cellular phone call. What I am trying to do is to extend that to the old archaic rule--think of this, think of this. You can be talking to a person who is your best friend; he or she can be tape-recording that conversation and publish it on the front page of the New York Times or the Washington Post, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. I have exempted law enforcement; I have exempted intelligence agencies; I have exempted everybody who has to make telephone calls in their business; I have exempted people who are threatened or stalked. Please, let's correct this once and for all.

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I offered this amendment in 1984 when Charles Wick, head of the United States Information Agency, said that he had taped 84 phone calls, including Reagan, Cabinet Members, President Carter. I offered it then, and I got 41 votes. I offered it again in 1993. Linda Tripp has nothing to do with this. This is plain decency. It is constitutional. It is an invasion of your privacy for somebody to record a conversation of you and you not know it. It is offensive in the extreme.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am glad the opponents to this amendment don't have anything to say this morning, and I am happy to use up the rest of my time. Perhaps we can get a unanimous consent agreement that they will yield back the balance of their time and we will vote. All I want to say is we are talking about a criminal justice system of the greatest nation on Earth, which is terrible. We are not talking about the mob, we are not talking about the mafioso, we are talking witnesses. Here is a classic case of a fulfillment of what everybody in this Senate has said at one time or another, and that is criminals have a better deal than do ordinary citizens. A criminal gets an attorney hired for him if he doesn't have one. A criminal is advised to remain silent. The Senator's wife can't remain silent. She has been subpoenaed to come down and testify. All I am saying, don't make her go outside the room. The attorney in the courtroom, he is not going to file motions. He is not going to make objections. But I tell you what it will do. It will have a salutary effect on the conduct of the attorney prosecuting the case. He won't be asking redundant, personal questions that have nothing to do with the case. This is not a game of ``gotcha,'' a game of seeing how many scalps you can put on your belt, how many notches you can put on your gun barrel. This is American justice we are talking about. We haven't addressed the grand jury system in 10 years. It is 500 years old, and it is 10 times worse now than it was 500 years ago.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. BUMPERS. This is the amendment that Senator Hatch and I agreed to this morning which would modify the grand jury amendment that I lost. This morning, Senator Hatch and I agreed to a plan that recommended that the issue be submitted to the Judicial Conference for study and a report back to Congress. I have talked to the floor managers who have agreed to it. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.