[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1861-S1872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2349 which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2349) to provide greater transparency in the
legislative process.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 2932, to provide additional transparency
in the legislative process.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes this
morning commenting on the provisions offered by the Democratic leader,
Senator Reid of Nevada, which is a comprehensive amendment that covers
a lot of the waterfront related to the matter before us, and that is
greater transparency and accountability by Members of this institution
as well as those who lobby us, who come to us and petition us as paid
representatives of various public, private, and nonprofit entities, so
we have a better opportunity to restore a lot of the confidence that
has been eroded in how this institution performs its public function.
My colleague from Nevada, the chairman of the Democratic team here,
has put together a very good proposal. It has been endorsed and
supported by over 40 of our colleagues as part of the larger Reid bill.
It is called the Honest Leadership Act. It covers a lot of ground. I
want to identify the provisions in this bill. I know my colleague from
Nevada has done that already, but it deserves repetition.
As someone who has now spent more than a quarter of a century in this
body, I have great respect for my colleagues and their integrity. We
all know that laws are not only written for the majority who abide by
the law, but occasionally we write laws because there are those who
step outside the boundaries, particularly when it comes to public
responsibility and trust. I am not suggesting by this amendment, nor is
the Democratic leader, that my colleagues in any way, at least the
overwhelming majority, are violating not only the law of the land but
even ethics, a sense of responsibility, a sense of good conduct. But we
have learned painfully over the last number of months that there are
people, unfortunately, who serve in public life, who serve in this
great Capitol building, who do take advantage of their position for
private gain, who have abused that public trust and have caused this
institution and its Members to suffer once again the derision of our
constituents, of people who are disappointed about how we conduct our
business. It is a painful thing to go through.
I have often said I would be willing to take the 99 Members I serve
with in this body and compare their ethics and morality to almost any
other group of people, and I am sure they would stand up very well. But
the facts are that we have people who do abuse the process, and we need
to be cognizant of that and respond to it. That is what Senator Lott
and I are doing. That is what my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and
Senator Collins, are doing with their proposal which is part of the
underlying bill.
Senator Reid, on behalf of more than 40 of our colleagues, has put
together a
[[Page S1862]]
comprehensive proposal to try and deal with many of these issues. I am
sure there are matters with which some Members may disagree, may want
to fine-tune in some way, may not necessarily support every dotted
``I'' and crossed ``T.'' But the overall direction of the provisions
included in this proposal is one that should enjoy broad support. We
hope when the vote occurs later this morning, we can have strong
support for it.
Let me mention several things it does. One, it bans all gifts,
including meals, from lobbyists, the assumption being that this is no
longer acceptable. There is no connection between the work of someone
petitioning government on behalf of a client or an organization and
simultaneously offering some gift to the Member or to the staff of that
Member as a way of ingratiating themselves on behalf of the cause they
represent. It may be innocent enough. We may find it obnoxious, even,
in some cases, considering some of the things that are called gifts.
But nonetheless, the perception--perception is reality in the business
of public life--that Members of Congress or their staffs are receiving
some unrelated item or gift or service or activity as a result of the
relationship has come to be unacceptable to most of us here. And again,
perceptions are such that we suffer as a result of that kind of
conduct.
We also impose some additional restrictions of disclosure on the
revolving door issue, requirements under the bill's revolving door
provisions. This has to do with Members and senior staff who serve here
and then leave and go into private life and become lobbyists and use
that relationship to come back and have an immediate, direct influence
on the legislative process as a result of those close, personal
relationships. The revolving door has tried to have additional
disclosure requirements and even extend to some degree the amount of
time before such a person could come back and lobby their Member or
other Members of this body or their senior staff.
We also deal in the Reid proposal with congressional travel. It bans
lobbyists or anybody affiliated with them from being involved in
congressional travel. Again, I say ``congressional travel.'' Travel can
be a very important element of service in the U.S. Congress. Members,
from time to time, need to get out around the country and need to
engage in foreign travel. We are not talking about that. We are not
talking about related travel in which Members should be engaged. We are
talking about those travel expenses that are unrelated.
The most egregious case recently is the matter involving Members of
the other body on a golfing excursion in Scotland. When people look at
that, they assume maybe all of us are doing those sorts of things. That
is not the case, but that is the perception. We need to limit what we
talk about here in terms of the travel in which Members of Congress can
engage. In my view, if you are traveling on behalf of your public
responsibilities as a Member of the Senate or a Member of the Congress,
then that is something we ought to allow. In fact, we ought to
encourage it. If the travel is unrelated to that nexus of your public
responsibility, we ought to try to limit it, if not ban it altogether.
The Reid proposal does that. It allows only bona fide 501(c)(3)
organizations to pay for congressional travel for factfinding,
educational purposes. It retains the requirement for Ethics Committee
approval for travel beforehand so that if Members think it may be
questionable, they can get a ruling ahead of time. It requires
certification that the trip is not planned, supported, or paid for by
lobbyists. It imposes per diem rates on acceptable third-party-paid
travel and lodging.
I point out, Mr. President, it tightens the ban on the so-called K
Street project. This is controversial. My colleague from Mississippi
was patient in the Rules Committee in listening to the K Street project
provision that was offered by my friend from Illinois. It was pointed
out in committee that there are already prohibitions in existing
criminal law for people who would suggest that there was going to be a
price that someone would pay if they hired or did not hire someone else
based on their political affiliation. We thought it was so important to
establish this principle in the rules of this body that we have
codified the prohibition against those who would pressure outside
employers to make a hiring decision based primarily on party
affiliation. This is wrong, it is an abuse, and it ought to be stopped.
The Reid proposal does just that.
It is especially egregious where it is accompanied by a threat--
implicit or explicit--that a Member might take or withhold certain
actions based on the hiring decision. We have learned that has
happened. It is unfortunate. The businesses that did that were unwise
and shortsighted, but nonetheless it has occurred. This proposal
includes the ban on the so-called K Street-type projects.
There are new civil and criminal penalties to combat public
corruption. It would require new certifications by lobbyists on gifts
and travel and by trip sponsors and increase penalties for knowing,
willful, and corrupt violations under the False Statements Act. It
would prohibit dead-of-night legislating, require a final vote on
conference reports in a public meeting, which, again, I think is
critical here.
We know if you are getting this legislation out, getting it to be
public on the Internet so people have an opportunity to read, as well,
what we are about to do, what actions we are about to take--I know this
becomes difficult under certain circumstances, particularly at the end
of a session if you are dealing with continuing resolutions which can
be very large and so forth. It imposes burdens on this institution. But
I think we bear a responsibility to make sure the public has a clear
idea, or at least the opportunity for a clear idea, to understand what
we are about to do, what actions we are about to take, and how they
would affect them.
So I urge my colleagues, again, to support this kind of provision.
Not all are people on this side or the other side of the aisle. So that
is what is being proposed by Senator Reid of Nevada. I hope in looking
at this, in conjunction with the underlying accomplishments--let me say
once again to my colleagues, I think the work of the Rules Committee
was a good effort, and we are proud of what we did. Again, this is a
dynamic process that doesn't happen all at once. What is reform one day
is not the next, and you go back and forth. I always loved this line,
and you have to be careful.
There was a wonderful Republican Party chairman in New York who once
said that the last refuge of the scoundrel was patriotism--until they
invented the word ``reform.'' People sometimes hide behind that
language as a way to achieve certain ends.
What we have done here with the underlying bill--and I think with the
Reid proposal--is strengthen this legislation. It is going to make us
all better Members, help restore confidence in this institution and its
individual Members. I emphasize what I said at the outset. I have great
confidence in the ethical, moral behavior of my colleagues. People I
have total disagreements with on policy matters, I trust them as to how
they conduct themselves in these public arenas. But every profession
learns that the laws are not written for the majority who obey the law.
Laws and codes of ethics are written for those in the minority who
violate that trust and confidence.
So we write these provisions and include these proposals in statutory
law and in our code of conduct not because we believe every Member is
somehow on the brink or cusp of engaging in irresponsible behavior but
because we recognize and understand that from time to time there will
be people who serve with us who will violate that public trust and
confidence. That is why we have these codes of conduct, why we have
statutory language that prohibits the behavior that we have outlined in
these proposals.
So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes in roughly an hour or
so, to support the Reid proposal. It is offered on behalf of more than
40 of us in this body. We think it is a sound proposal that would
strengthen an already good bill. I urge my colleagues to cast and
``aye'' vote for the Reid amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after conferring with our colleagues on this
side of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to
the Reid amendment No. 2932 occur at 11:30 a.m.,
[[Page S1863]]
with no second degrees in order prior to the vote, and that all time be
equally divided until the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to come over to speak
if they wish.
Mr. LOTT. Those who would like to be heard, we want to make sure they
can be heard. I would be glad to yield my own floor time so they can
comment. I do have some comments I would like to make, and I will ask
unanimous consent--I will do it then--that we set aside the Reid
amendment so that we can have one offered by Senator Santorum, and we
can begin debate on that. The emphasis will be on the Reid amendment,
if you want to check that and make sure you are OK with that. I see one
potential speaker.
In order to try to keep things moving, we are going to try to get
another amendment offered, and we will alternate back and forth.
Mr. DODD. I have no objection at all to that proposal offered by my
friend from Mississippi. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle who
have amendments or ideas on the bill, let us know so we can move the
process along, and let us know what your amendments are so we can begin
to consider and discuss them even before they are offered as a way of
trying to expedite the process. The Senate wants to consider other
matters. This is very important, but I would like to move as rapidly as
we can on the consideration of these ideas and proposals.
I urge my colleagues who have amendments and want to be heard to let
us know as soon as possible.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, full disclosure, too. We have other Senators
who would like to get into the mix, I say to Senator Dodd. Senator
Inhofe is here with some amendments, some of which we can probably get
an agreement on, some of which will take more time. Also, Senator
Vitter, who is in the chair now, would like to get into the mix.
As we go back and forth, I thought we would go to Santorum, and then
if you have a Senator--or maybe we can clear a couple of the Inhofe
amendments. That is what we would like to do.
Mr. President, I want to respond a little bit to the Reid proposal. I
think you have to give credit to Senator Reid and the Democrats for
developing some legislation for this body to consider. People may be
shocked to hear me say that, thinking that is not the way we do things.
This is basically the Democratic leader's proposal. My attitude is,
look, good work was done on it. They have a package here. Some of it
was good enough that we pulled it out and put it right into the Rules
Committee bill. I want to give credit to the fact that they want to
work on this and have made some recommendations. In that vein, Senator
Santorum, at the request of our leader, as chairman of our conference,
went to work and started developing a package of ideas, amendments, and
concerns and solutions, too.
So both parties were working on this. Yes, it was on separate tracks,
but as we went forward Senators began to realize that this is not
really partisan. It is even bigger than the institution. It is about us
and the people we represent and their rights. We need to think this
through because whatever we do, we are going to have to live with it,
and the American people are going to have to live with it.
As time went forward, Senator Santorum was working with Senator
McCain and Senator Lieberman. I started working with Senator Dodd--we
talked--and Senator Feinstein, and then bipartisan meetings started to
happen. I tell you, I wish we could do more things here like this. We
came to a juncture and we reported out a bill from the Rules Committee
that was unanimously approved. The Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out a bill that had only one dissenting
vote. This is the way it ought to work.
I give credit to Senator Reid and the Democrats for getting involved
and helping this process. But now we have to produce legislation. It is
important that we hear each other out and that we have some debate and
some amendments and votes and get this job done.
Mr. President, the amendment presented by the Democratic leader is
not fundamentally different from any of the provisions of the bill
reported by the Rules Committee and by the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee. It has similar provisions to what was
in the Santorum package. Our main differences are on issues such as how
to treat gifts from lobbyists, and the Reid amendment bars all gifts
from registered lobbyists. The Rules Committee bans gifts from
registered lobbyists, except for meals, which are not included in the
definition of a gift. I will give you one example for why we are making
this exception. Our bill bars gifts from registered lobbyists and
foreign agents. A very thoughtful Senator, chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, inquired: Wait a minute. How will
that work if I am invited as chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee to a dinner at an embassy of a foreign country that involves
foreign agents? Will I be able to go? How will I deal with that?
That is the kind of thoughtful question we better think about because
we don't want to put ourselves into a position where we cannot do our
jobs.
Another example of where I am concerned is we have language in the
Homeland Security bill that is going to restrict or require more
reporting of grassroots lobbying activities. This will have a chilling
effect on grassroots lobbying. Do we want to do that? What about the
right of the people to petition their government for a redress of
grievances? Why are we letting on like there is something wrong with
people with a point of view who would get people involved and get our
constituents to contact us about an issue? We are big boys and girls.
We should be able to hear from our constituents, even if they are
inspired by the Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club, or even if it
is something such as the ports issue. I heard from a lot of my
constituents. We need to make sure we think through what we do here.
The Reid amendment claims to prohibit privately funded travel, yet,
in fact, it does no such thing. It opens a loophole that would allow
501(c)(3) organizations to finance congressional travel. The Rules
Committee requires far stricter preclearance of such trips.
My attitude is, instead of setting up a new process or new loophole,
let's have these trips reviewed mandatorily and approved or you can't
do it. Then you have to also divulge the itinerary and who is involved
in these trips. I think that is a far better approach.
The Democratic alternative presented by Senator Reid bars lobbyists
from participating in such trips whereas the Rules Committee measure
requires disclosure of lobbyist involvement.
The Reid amendment also prohibits a Member from negotiating for
prospective private employment if a conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict exists. We have that in our Rules Committee
language. We actually went a step further than that. The law prohibits
this already, but I also think that a rule in this area is fine.
The Reid amendment makes it a felony for a Member of Congress to seek
to influence a private employment decision by threatening to take or
withhold an official act. Absolutely we should do that. I think the law
already does that. I honestly believe the bills reported by the Rules
Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee are superior to the Reid
amendment.
When I first looked at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
bill, I wasn't quite sure what it did. But as I read it more and more,
it is very good in terms of reporting, disclosure, and transparency. It
requires more reporting with regard to lobbyists.
We better continue to ask ourselves about what we are doing here. For
instance, I am particularly troubled by the provisions that would only
allow travel sponsored by 501(c)(3) organizations. Do my colleagues not
realize that 501(c)(3) organizations can be manipulated and used by
lobbyists as fronts for their lobbying activities? In fact, that is
exactly what Jack Abramoff did. He laundered money through a 501(c)(3)
and used a tax-exempt entity to finance congressional travel.
[[Page S1864]]
This is one of my major concerns with the Reid proposal. I think it
actually endorses a process that has been used to abuse the lobbying
rules.
While the effort here is a good one by Senator Reid and in good
faith, we have a superior bill. Where Senator Reid had some good
proposals, we put them into the Rules Committee bill. But there are
many provisions, a much more detailed package from the Rules Committee
and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
I hope when the time comes, this amendment will be rejected. We are
trying to make this a responsible bill--not inferring that the Reid
amendment is not responsible. We are also trying to make it bipartisan.
So I am concerned that we have come right out of the gate with a
partisan package. I assume we are not going to have the Santorum
alternative offered as a package. It has been melded into what we have.
I urge my colleagues to reject the partisan package. Let's take the
good stuff out of it and make it a part of our final product.
Mr. President, I will be glad to yield the floor so a Senator may
speak on the Reid proposal. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if it is all right with Senator Dodd, I
wish to be heard on the Reid amendment for not longer than 15 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield whatever the time the Senator cares to use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has now taken
up this important issue. I compliment Senators Lott and Dodd for
working together, as well as Senators Collins and Lieberman. We needed
to have this debate. We need to have these changes.
Over the past several months, we have all heard the sorry tale of
scandal and corruption and bribery involving Jack Abramoff, senior Bush
administration officials, and, sadly for us, Members of Congress. Those
tales have unfolded here in Washington. It is clear that these scandals
show corruption has taken hold here and that we in Congress must act.
That is why I am so glad we have set aside time for this bill.
The measure on the floor today makes important strides in cleaning up
corruption, but, in my view, it doesn't go quite far enough. Under the
leadership of Senator Harry Reid, Senate Democrats have advanced
legislation that goes even further, but it doesn't go so far as to make
it unworkable or unreasonable.
We were and Senator Reid was the first to respond to the revelations
of scandal and corruption in Washington. Nearly the entire Democratic
caucus united to create a package of reforms which we call the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. It was the first idea that
we rolled out for the American people to see.
I believe the Reid bill helped set the tone for the bill we are
debating today. I do, again, Mr. President, thank Senator Lott for his
leadership in the committee. I thank him for working so closely with
Senator Dodd. And I say the same to all my colleagues involved in this
issue because we know the partisanship here is deep and the Senators
set it aside, and for that we are all grateful.
What we have before us is an excellent start. If we did that and
nothing else, it is a start. But we have a chance now to do better. I
think the American people won't settle for just a good start; they want
to see deep reform. They want the revolving door slowed so that they
don't see Members of Congress--Senators and House Members--staff
members, and administration officials walking out the Capitol steps and
walking right into a lucrative job where they will have undue influence
in terms of what goes on in the Congress.
The American people want to feel they still have a voice, even though
they don't have thousands or maybe millions of dollars to shell out on
K Street where the lobbyists thrive. They want gifts banned. They don't
want to see a commission report on why the latest scandal happened;
they want measures in place that prevent scandals from taking place at
all.
My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle are prepared to offer
amendments to strengthen this bill, and Senator Reid's package is the
first such attempt. I believe it is important, again, to strengthen
this bill and raise it to a standard in which our constituents can take
comfort.
We truly need to go beyond what we have before us. We also need to go
beyond the Congress and follow the money, as sordid as it may be, and
follow the meetings, and follow the contacts between Mr. Abramoff and
the White House. So far, the White House is quick to admonish those
outside the administration who engage in scandalous acts. Yet they have
maintained a policy of duck and cover and denying when allegations are
pointed in their direction.
I will have an amendment calling on the White House to cooperate, to
turn over the information that we and the public deserve to have on how
many times Jack Abramoff was in the White House, or his associates, and
what it is they wanted and what it is they got and what it is they
gave. That amendment will be coming soon. It is very clear. I hope it
will be accepted. I know that my side of the aisle supports it.
My amendment simply says that the White House should fully disclose
all of its dealings with Mr. Abramoff. We certainly should disclose our
dealings, and as far as I know, every Member has gone back and looked
to see if they received contributions from Mr. Abramoff, if they
received contributions from anyone associated with him. Many of us have
acted to either return those contributions or to explain why we would
rather give them to charity. We have opened up our books. The White
House has to open up its books as well.
Again, I am very pleased at the bipartisan effort that has taken
place to bring ethics reform to the floor today, and I urge all my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment offered
by the Senator from Nevada and continue this bipartisanship.
Anyone who knows Harry Reid knows he is a reasonable person who loves
this institution, who has given his life to public service, starting
from the time he was a police officer. The Reid amendment serves only
to strengthen the reforms we seek and that the American people demand.
This is what it does in part.
It closes the revolving door so that the outcome of legislation is
not tied to a Member's potential job prospects. It ends the K Street
project by shutting down the pay-to-play corruption scheme. K Street
offices should be staffed by individuals who are the most qualified for
the job, not well-placed former congressional staffers who obtain their
job through a back-room deal to stack the deck in any party's political
favor. And we know that calls come routinely to these offices saying:
Hire this staff or that staff, and the implication is you will be
treated better in legislation. It is a disgrace.
The Reid amendment increases penalties for violations of the rules
under the Lobbying Disclosure Act as a further deterrent for lobbyists
to engage in unethical practices, and it prohibits dead-of-night
legislating to allow for an open meeting of the conferees with access
by the public. The public is so shut out around here. Not only are
Democrats shut out of some conferences, but the public certainly knows
not what is going on. We want the light of day to shine. If you want to
stop those bridges to nowhere and other projects that don't make any
sense, open up the process to the light of day, and all of us--all of
us--will be scrutinized.
I think we should impose tougher restrictions on congressional travel
and gifts. We know there is a difference between traveling in an
official congressional delegation and traveling because some company
wants to do you a favor. We know what that is about. There is a
difference between a truly educational trip that is sponsored by a
foundation with no ties to special economic interests and a trip that
is organized by some economic interests that want to treat you in a way
that will make you more open to what they want. There is a difference
here, and I think what the Reid amendment does is walk that line.
So with this bill, amended by the Reid amendment, the American public
will have reason to feel confident that laws are being written and
debated and voted on by Members who respect democracy and the wishes of
their constituents and are not unduly influenced
[[Page S1865]]
by forces that simply want it because it is good for their bottom line.
We must be open, we must be honest, and we must be ethical. I know
each of us tries to do that, but the rules need to reflect the highest
denominator, not the middle, not the lowest. With this bill, we are at
the middle denominator. The Reid amendment and some other amendments
offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle can bring us up to
that highest level, and I hope we will start by voting ``aye'' on the
Reid amendment in a bipartisan way. It will set the tone of this
debate.
I thank my colleague Senator Dodd for yielding me this time. I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized for the purpose of
having a colloquy with the chairman and ranking minority member,
Senator Lott and Senator Dodd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for that purpose.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.
As the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee knows, Senator
Grassley and I have worked for a decade to bring some openness and
accountability to the Senate by requiring that when a Senator puts a
hold on a major piece of legislation, they would have to disclose it
publicly. Senator Grassley and I are ready to go with that bipartisan
amendment which we have worked on for a decade. I would simply ask the
distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member
what the process is so that Senator Grassley and I can bring forward
this bipartisan amendment. I pose my question to the distinguished
chairman of the committee.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in answer to the distinguished Senator from
Oregon, we have before us the Reid amendment which is in the nature of
a substitute.
I am advised it is not; it is a regular amendment. We are going to
have a vote on it at 11:30. We are open for debate on that amendment.
Then we are working out arrangements where we would come back to this
side to Senator Santorum and Senator Dodd, who are going to offer the
next amendment jointly, sometime between now and 11:30, or immediately
after the vote on the Reid amendment. Then it would be back to the
Democratic side and going back and forth for the next amendment that
might be in order. We are encouraging Members to come to the floor and
offer their amendments. We have Senator Inhofe coming up to offer
amendments on our side. But after Senator Santorum, we would be back
for I guess a jump ball if anybody wanted to offer an amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Would it be acceptable to the distinguished chair of the
committee and ranking minority member that I could ask unanimous
consent that after you all have completed the bipartisan amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Pennsylvania, that
when you all have completed your business, the Wyden-Grassley amendment
come next?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have no objection. We are encouraging
Senators to come to the floor with their amendments, and if Senator
Wyden would like to be next in line, that is fine. As a part of that,
let me ask consent that Senator Inhofe be allowed to offer the next
amendment after the Wyden-Grassley amendment so we would have a package
of the two lined up.
I propose then that we have the Wyden amendment in order after the
Santorum-Dodd proposal, to be followed by the Inhofe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking
minority member.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, does my colleague from Delaware request
time?
Mr. CARPER. I do. Can I ask for 5 minutes?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have been trying to go back and
forth. The last speaker was Senator Boxer. I think we have been trying
to alternate back and forth.
Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator propose to speak on the pending amendment?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am going to talk about the bill, and
then I will yield back to Senator Dodd to actually offer the amendment
we are working on, was my intent. That was the plan.
Mr. President, I, too, rise to thank Senator Lott and Senator Dodd,
as well as Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman. They talked about how
this process has been somewhat unique in the annals of recent Senate
history and about how this process has worked now for the past month, a
little over a month in a way that, as Senator Lott said, should be done
more often around here, which is sitting down and having good,
bipartisan discussions to try to come up with a consensus piece of
legislation.
While obviously there will be lots of amendments, at least the
foundation of this bill is one that included a lot of bipartisan input
and, in fact, has features from both sides of the aisle and is as much
a bipartisan bill, at least on a major bill, as has been brought to the
floor in a long time. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the
committees, in particular Senator McCain for his leadership on this
issue, as well as others who participated in the bipartisan process,
including Senator Feingold, Senator Pryor, Senator Obama, Senator
Salazar, and others who have made contributions on the Democratic side;
Senator Vitter, Senator Isakson on the Republican side, who have also
been very involved in the process.
As a result of that process, we came up with a working document. I
won't call it a consensus because there were Members who had varying
points of view on a variety of these issues, but let's say that at the
conclusion of our discussions we had a working draft that had broad
support as a whole. At the same time, as you will see in the
discussions and in the amendments we are going to have today, some wish
to ratchet it up a little bit, make it a little tougher; others thought
it might be a little too tough. But in the areas of concern, there was
broad agreement on what those areas of concern are, and suggestions of
approaches on how to deal with it.
I wish to go through the areas that we agreed needed to be addressed
and what the general idea was in how to proceed with a lot of the
things that are up here, which were foundational in the sense that we
started with the McCain-Lieberman bill that Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman introduced a couple of months ago, and there was some
tinkering to that legislation. Overall, the disclosure requirements in
that legislation were universally embraced and adopted for disclosure
of lobbyist contributions to Member PACs, and lobbyist disclosure of
executive and congressional employment. All of those things were
included, as well as others we have heard talked about on the floor.
Several things were not included: disclosure of contracts with State
sponsors of terrorism. That is something I happen to believe should be
included in the legislation, but so far we have had objections to that
being included. I am not too sure I understand why but, nevertheless,
it has not been included.
We suggested 30 days, not 60 days, to comply with the rules. That has
not been included.
Higher penalties. The penalties were increased from $50,000 to
$100,000. Many of us believe that is not sufficient as a deterrent for
some who make a lot more than $50,000 or $100,000 around here on
transactions. So we think a higher penalty sends a stronger signal, and
I will be offering an amendment on that to increase the penalties up to
$200,000. Again, it is up to $200,000 for breaking these rules,
lobbyists breaking these rules.
One of the important things we brought to the table that was not in
the underlying bill was disclosure of rule enforcement by the Secretary
of the Senate and the U.S. Attorney. In other words, one of the
concerns Members have and that the public has is, What sort of
oversight is being done? Are there any actions being taken? What this
would require is that when there, in fact, is an action taken on the
part of the committee, and it has been referred to a U.S. Attorney for
prosecution--not that particular case, but at least the number of cases
that have been referred is made public so we know the level of
activity. Not the specific charge, because we don't know whether the
U.S. Attorney will actually bring a charge, but we at least know the
number.
[[Page S1866]]
There are several other things we did in our bipartisan discussions:
ban registered lobbyists who are former Members from the Senate floor;
no staff contact with lobbyists who are a member of the family, which
is an amendment I successfully offered in committee, in the Rules
Committee; and the earmark transparency, something Senator Lott and
Senator Feinstein have worked with, and obviously Senator McCain. There
will be differences. We passed something out of the Rules Committee.
There will be amendments to try to expand this provision, maybe
contract this provision, modify it; but the idea was developed and
supported by a bipartisan group.
Another thing Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman put in their
bill, which was very important that we brought to the table, was the
idea of an SRO, a self-regulatory organization that many professional
organizations use to police their own ranks. While we can pass laws and
we can pass rules that try to govern the lobbyist profession, there are
a lot of things within the profession that need to be upgraded, whether
it is fees or whether it is professional ethics, and there is not a
good body out there that does that. There certainly isn't any kind of
self-regulatory body that does that. We think it is vitally important
to send a message from the Congress to the folks who make a living
petitioning their government to clean up their own house, and
particularly in greater detail than what the Congress could or should
do with respect to the practices, the internal practices of lobbying
firms and lobbyists.
I think this is a very important suggestion, something I felt very
strongly about, and I appreciate Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins
for including it in their legislation.
This is the final chart, which again shows the consensus. You can see
the checkmarks here again, which are areas that are already included in
the bill that were part of the bipartisan discussion, to extend the
lobbying ban for Members and senior staff from 1 to 2 years for Members
and included more senior staff of Members in a separate amendment. Both
were discussed and supported broadly in our discussions.
This is something I also felt very strongly about: Members not being
able to negotiate for private sector employment while they are a member
of the Senate. Then we put in the date of the election of your
successor as the date you can then freely discuss employment
opportunities for after your life here in the Senate. We have an
exception. There needs to be an exception. If something happens, a
personal emergency in the family, or something comes up where you feel
you have to leave the Senate for some reason, the opportunity to have
those discussions simply must be disclosed within 3 days of having
those discussions. Again, we think there needs to be an escape hatch
for those kinds of contingencies.
Travel was a very big point of discussion and will be a point of
discussion here on the floor of the Senate. Privately funded travel
must be preapproved by Ethics, be of educational value, have little or
no R and R--rest and recreational value, disclosure of the lobbyist's
involvement in the trip, as well as all activities reported after the
trip. In other words, you have to file a comprehensive report of what
you did, not just what you planned to do.
The area that was not done and that I will be offering an amendment
on with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold is having to do with the
Members and Federal candidates paying a fair market value for the cost
of corporate travel. I know this is very controversial, particularly
for Members from larger States using a private aircraft in getting
around. But as we will discuss later with Senator McCain and Senator
Feingold on the floor, we believe this is an area that needs to be
addressed. This is clearly a subsidy. I understand, and I think we all
understand, this will probably require higher amounts of money in our
accounts to be able to pay for these costs as we travel around our
States that now are, in a sense, subsidized by the private sector. But
I believe this is a very important transparency issue.
The final issue is the mandatory disclosure of travel on private
charter flights by Members as well as Federal candidates, so this is
something that we did.
The last thing that is on the agenda, and then I will turn it over to
the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, is the gift ban. Now we do
have a gift ban in this bill having to do with lobbyists. Lobbyists are
no longer allowed to give any gift of any value to Members. The one
area that is excluded from that is meals. To be clear, what the Rules
Committee did was make a change to current law which says, you are
allowed to purchase a meal for a Member of Congress or his staff of up
to almost $50. The Rules Committee said you have to now report it if it
is above $10. That, I think, is worse than the current law, in my
opinion, because it sets up a situation where Members--I can tell you
if this is the law that would go into place, I would tell my staff, and
certainly I would never have a meal with a Member, because it creates
the impression first that you have to report it, and of course any
activity that occurred with respect to that lobbyist and your office or
legislation you voted on or campaign activities would be tied to this
particular event which, of course, may or may not have had anything to
do with that particular event, but it creates, I think, an untenable
situation. I think the effect of Senator Lott's suggestion would be, in
fact, a ban on meals, so if that would be the effect of it, let's do
it.
So I have offered an amendment. Senator Dodd came to the floor with
the same idea. We have spoken. We have decided to jointly offer an
amendment that would ban all meals from registered lobbyists to Members
of Congress and their staff. That is the amendment Senator Dodd will be
teeing up here in a moment. Again, we filed virtually identical
amendments.
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut because of the
fine work he has done to be the lead sponsor on this amendment. We need
to work together and get this done because the current situation in
this bill, in my opinion, is simply untenable and is a potential trap
for the unsuspecting, which I would not like to see be visited on any
Member of the Senate.
With that, again, I want to congratulate all of those who were
involved. I think you see that the bipartisan process we worked on for
several weeks yielded the basis--the basis of the bill we have before
us has yielded a situation where I think most of the amendments that
are going to be offered are going to be offered in a bipartisan fashion
because discussions were actively underway that did have sincere
collaboration. As a result of that, I think you are going to see a lot
of the effort being put forward today in a bipartisan fashion. I am
pleased to be able to kick that off with the Senator from Connecticut
on the issue of not allowing lobbyists to buy meals for either Members
or their staffs here in the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor for the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Who yields time?
Amendment No. 2942
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Delaware has asked to be
recognized. Before he does that, I am going to send a modification--an
amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, and Senator Obama to
the desk and ask for a modification to be accepted of that amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Reid amendment
for purposes of considering this amendment and then we will go right
back to the Reid amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike the meals and refreshments exception for lobbyists)
On page 8, strike lines 8 through 16.
Amendment No. 2942, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 2942), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike the meals and refreshments exception for lobbyists)
On page 8, strike lines 6 through 16 and insert the
following:
``(B) This clause shall not apply to a gift from a
registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal.''
Amendment No. 2932
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at conclusion of the vote on the Reid
amendment, this would be the next item to be
[[Page S1867]]
considered. That is the purpose for offering it now. For the purposes
of recognition, I am going back and forth, I believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to clarify, we will need to go back to the
Reid amendment or was that automatic under the agreement, so we are
back on the Reid amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reid amendment is once again pending.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a
unanimous consent we are operating under, but my only request is if the
Senator from Delaware goes next, I be recognized after the Senator from
Delaware for my amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to the parliamentary
inquiry before the Chair comments on it, we did get an agreement that
yours would be next in order. That was in the previous unanimous
consent agreement.
Mr. INHOFE. So I will be following the Senator from Delaware. Thank
you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, my thanks to Senator Dodd and Senator
Lott. My thanks to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins as well. By
working together, they have speeded along reforms that I think most of
us agree are badly needed. I am hopeful that the bipartisan approach
that they have taken on this issue will rub off on the rest of us, not
only with respect to this particular subject but with respect to others
that are before us.
I am sure all of us have gone home and heard about how disappointed
people are with what they see going on in parts of Washington these
days. I think most Delawareans realize we are not all taking bribes and
not all lobbyists are crooks. I certainly agree with them. I have met
many more good people here during my time in the Senate than bad, and I
am sure those sentiments are shared by my colleagues. But similar to
those I have spoken to in recent months, news of the Abramoff scandal
and of the bribing of Congressmen and their staffs have hit the papers
and television news outside the beltway. I am gravely disappointed that
our system can allow such excesses and disrespect for the people who
sent us here.
The fact is, the American people have lost some of the trust they
have placed in their leaders here in Washington. That is dangerous
because, as we all know, a lot of the folks around our country did not
have a whole lot of trust in us to begin with. That is why I am proud
to support today the amendment offered by Senator Reid. It would add
several provisions from the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
to the bill that is before us today.
Senator Reid's amendment would make a good bill even better. It would
do so by ending certain practices that at the very least create among
our constituents a perception of impropriety.
Along those lines, the Reid amendment would prohibit Members and
staff from receiving gifts from registered lobbyists. Many offices,
mine included, are already implementing this kind of reform. We will no
longer accept meals, entertainment or any other gifts from lobbyists,
and will abide by that standard until the Congress decides what the new
standard should be.
The Reid amendment would also ban congressional travel funded by
companies and other special interests that have business before the
Senate. Senator Reid's proposals to end the practice of receiving gifts
and privately funded travel from lobbyists are, in my opinion, reason
enough to vote for this amendment. Unfortunately, we find ourselves at
a time and place where even truly significant reforms will be met with
skepticism by the American people. While none of us could be bought
with a $50 meal, the all too common assumption is that any reform, any
new restriction, any new guideline or rule will be written in such a
way that Members, staff, and lobbyists will still have loopholes
through which to operate.
Bans close all loopholes. In this case, the bans proposed in the Reid
amendment would go a long way toward disabusing people of the notion
that nothing will change as a result of the reforms that we are
debating today.
Let me add one quick comment before I close. However good our rules
are in the Senate or House, however well intentioned our rules are, it
is critical that the rules be enforced. When we look at what has gone
on in the House of Representatives over the last several years, a major
problem there was not so much the rules but the failure to enforce the
rules that exist, the failure to enforce them with respect to lobbyists
and apparently with respect to Members of the House and with members of
their staffs.
I hope our work on lobbying reform sends the signal to the American
people that we are serious about restoring their trust in us and in
this institution. As we all know, that trust is absolutely essential to
the good health of our democracy and of our country.
I will yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2933. I ask the
Senate to set aside the pending amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding it was agreed to by
both sides, that I was to be recognized for the purpose of setting
aside the amendment and calling up amendment No. 2933.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that was not what was agreed to, as I
understand the question, from the Senator from Oklahoma. We have the
Reid amendment, and then the next in order was going to be the
Santorum-Dodd amendment. Then we were going to go to Senator Wyden, and
then the consent was that the Senator from Oklahoma would be next in
order, to offer his amendment and have debate at that point.
Mr. INHOFE. If that is what you recall--that is certainly not the
intention of this Senator.
Mr. LOTT. Was that the way it was agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not what the Chair recalls, but that
is what I have been told was agreed to. I will defer to someone who was
here before me.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask if our leader would defer for a question. I
appreciate very much the Senator's attention. I have been down here
since before the bill came up with the intention of being the first
one. I yielded to Senator Santorum. We wanted to go back and forth. It
was my understanding Senator Carper was recognized and I would be right
after him and that time has arrived.
What is the problem?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. He came here early
on, ready to go. But there had already been discussion with Senator
Santorum about being able to offer his amendment. We try to go back and
forth from one side of the aisle to the other.
Mr. INHOFE. Last I saw, Senator Carper was a Democrat.
Mr. LOTT. He was just speaking. He didn't have an amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Chair what his understanding was of the
unanimous consent request?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, No. 1, we have an order of how amendments
will go. On a separate track, we were debating the Reid amendment, and
we were alternating back and forth, having speakers speak on the Reid
amendment. That is where there seems be maybe a dichotomy. Senator
Carper was going to speak next. Then Senator Inhofe would be able to
speak next. That was my understanding.
Mr. DODD. The two Senators from Illinois, I say to my colleague, want
to be heard on the Reid amendment as well. We are losing some time. We
might have some private conversations on other matters, but let's get
through on the Reid amendment before the time expires.
Mr. LOTT. Was there a request pending?
Mr. DODD. It is an informal request.
Mr. LOTT. What is the Chair's impression?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair can think for a minute, he will
give it.
Mr. INHOFE. While the Chair is thinking----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 10:37 an agreement was reached to have a
[[Page S1868]]
vote on the Reid amendment at 11:30. At 11 o'clock, the following
agreement was reached: Following the disposition the Reid amendment,
which will be voted on at 11:30, the Senate will go to the Santorum-
Dodd amendment; following that, the Wyden amendment, and following
that, the Inhofe amendment. That was the agreement reached at 11
o'clock.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the leader yield for a request? If I do not take
more than 2 minutes, may I go ahead and bring mine up, set the current
amendment aside and bring it up so it will be in the mix?
Mr. DODD. I will have to object to that. We have to talk about this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
Mr. DODD. Let's sit down and talk about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. I yield a couple of minutes to my friend, Senator Obama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise briefly to support the amendment
offered by Senator Reid. I also support the amendment that was
introduced by Senator Dodd and Senator Santorum, of which I am a
cosponsor. But let me focus on the particular provision in Senator
Reid's bill, the honest leadership bill, that I think all of us should
pay attention to, and that is the provision which closes a loophole
that would still allow Members and staff to receive free meals from
lobbyists up to $50 in value.
On my way over to the floor, I passed a couple of security guards and
Capitol police. I asked them how often lobbyists had bought them a
meal. Surprisingly, they said none.
I talked to the young women who help us on the elevators on the way
up. I asked them: Has a lobbyist ever bought you a meal? The answer was
``no.''
In cities and towns all across America, it turns out people pay for
their own lunches and their own dinners, people who make far less than
we do, people who cannot afford their medical bills or their mortgages
or their kids' tuitions. If you ask them if they think that people they
send to Congress should be able to rack up a $50 meal on a lobbyist's
time, what do you think they are going to say? You ask them if they
think we should be able to feast on a free steak dinner at a fancy
restaurant while they are working two jobs to put food on the table. I
don't think we need a poll to find out the answer to that one.
I want to be clear. In no way do I think that any of my colleagues or
staffers would exchange votes for a meal. But that is not the point. It
is not just the meal that is the problem, it is the perception, the
access that the meals get you. In current Washington culture, lobbyists
are expected to pick up the tab when they meet with Members or staff.
It is understood by all sides that the best way to get face time with a
Member is to buy them a meal. You don't see many Members eating $50
meals with constituents who come into town to talk about issues on
their minds, or with policy experts who are discussing the latest
economic theories. Most of these meals that are taken are with
lobbyists who are advocating on behalf of special interests. It
diminishes perceptions, and it is something that I think has to stop.
Let me close by saying this. If people are interested in meeting with
lobbyists or having dinner with lobbyists, they can still do so. It is
very simple. You pull out your wallet and pay for it.
I strongly urge we support the Reid amendment. In addition, I
strongly support the Dodd-Santorum amendment, of which I am a
cosponsor.
I yield my time.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Durbin from Illinois asked to be
heard for 2 minutes as well. Senator Durbin has time during the day to
comment on this.
This is a very comprehensive amendment Senator Reid has offered. It
strengthens what is, in my view, already a very strong bill of the
Rules Committee. But it does close some gaps that I think are
critically important. I hope we can develop some bipartisan support. It
will take some issues we would have to debate later in the day off the
table because they would be included in this amendment.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this. You may not
agree with every single dotted ``i,'' as I said earlier, and crossed
``t.'' But if you agree with the thrust of this, I think it deserves
your support and it is one that would strengthen this bill on lobbying
reform and the transparency and accountability issues, which are the
hallmarks of this joint legislative effort.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the Reid
amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--55
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Byrd
The amendment (No. 2932) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I believe we are ready to go to the Dodd-
Santorum amendment.
Mr. DODD. That is true. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has a
unanimous consent request. I am prepared to yield to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes. My request would be in conjunction with the Wyden
amendment but also to bring up my amendment and set it aside so I would
be in the mix, if that would be all right. So a couple minutes would do
it.
Mr. DODD. And you have asked unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of
the Wyden amendment?
Mr. INHOFE. Let me go ahead and propound that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, there is an amendment I had submitted on
holds, and we have been trying to do this for quite some time. My good
friends, Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, have been trying to do the
same thing, and I think Senator Lott from Mississippi. So what I will
do is not offer my amendment No. 2933 in favor of the Wyden-Grassley
now Inhofe amendment that will be considered. That is my unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S1869]]
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment No. 2934 be called up for its immediate consideration.
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, that, as I understand it, is
in the order after the Dodd-Santorum amendment and the Wyden-Grassley-
Inhofe amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. OK. We would be able to get it up and get it in without
taking any time. If you want to go back to that order, that is fine.
Mr. DODD. Yes. I would like to do that, if we could, just to maintain
the order here.
I believe what the Senator would do, Madam President, after the
consideration of the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment, is then be next
in line for his amendment. Is that the Senator's request?
Mr. INHOFE. Well, my request is to go ahead and bring it up now, but
that is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, has the Chair ruled on the request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, let me just say to the Senator, I do not
believe we will be able to get a recorded vote before lunchtime on the
Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe issue.
We might be able to set that aside and take up yours and get it
disposed of before lunch, if that would be convenient to the Senator. I
am not asking that yet, but I believe we will probably do that.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, if we could see the amendment our
colleague would like to offer, it would be helpful to us. Why don't we
do that while I am talking about this amendment, and then before we
break from this, we can agree to what the Senator wants. I need to see
what the amendment is.
Mr. INHOFE. I would only say that the amendment has been at the desk
as of 8 this morning. I assume you have already gone over the
amendments.
Mr. DODD. But I understand there are five amendments. I want to know
which amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. This would be an amendment having to do with COLAs.
Mr. DODD. Cost-of-living increases. If we could see the amendment, I
will be glad--let me start and then he may offer that.
I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Arizona, Senator
McCain, and Senator Lieberman be added as cosponsors to the Santorum-
Dodd-Obama amendment. I believe that is what my colleague was
interested in being heard on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2942, as Modified
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2942, as modified,
on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, Senator Obama, Senator McCain,
and Senator Lieberman. This is to extend the ban on gifts from
lobbyists to include meals from lobbyists as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, this amendment is simple and
straightforward. It would ban meals from lobbyists in the same way that
the current bill bans all other gifts. For purposes of the Senate gift
rule, it would ban meals outright.
The Rules Committee has reported an amendment that bans all gifts.
But in an effort to deal with the meal issue, the language of the
underlying bill would allow for meals to be paid for by lobbyists but
would require, within 15 days of receiving a meal from a lobbyist or a
foreign agent, that the name of the person providing that meal and the
value of the meal be disclosed on the Member's Web site. In effect, we
are banning meals almost without language. The idea that every 15 days
we would be reporting these meals probably would result in a ban
outright anyway. But it is dangerous to leave language in there because
Members could inadvertently forget to report, as well as staff members
and the like. It seems to me the better course to follow is to ban
these meals outright and to avoid any possible problems that may occur
as a result of people having meals and failing to report these in an
adequate way or to misreport the details. It unnecessarily creates a
tripwire for staff who may attend meetings or events where food is
served but where the value is difficult to determine. None of us want
to do that.
What we are trying to do with this bill is not to play gotcha or to
catch people but to set some very clear bright lines about what is
permissible or impermissible behavior. Clearly, you can make a case--
and Members have--that meals are very much a part of a culture where
business is done. I know many Members and staff over the years have had
meals where they discuss legislation or upcoming amendments. There is
nothing inherently corrupt about it, but the meal is paid for. And the
perception is that there is an undue advantage given to those who are
able to take a Member or a senior staff member out for a meal, to then
ask them to support a particular provision or oppose something. That
creates the impression that Members are somehow being unduly
influenced. I will not stand here and suggest that that is the case,
but the perception could be that it is the case.
All of us who serve in public life understand that perceptions are
more real than reality in many cases, and the average citizen doesn't
have the opportunity to do that. Members of our constituency who would
like to talk to us rarely get the opportunity that a lobbyist has to
sit down. I happen to believe that lobbying is a right. I think it is
included in the first amendment of the Constitution to be able to
petition your Government. I don't want to be party to things that limit
people's ability to come and petition their Government. That is what it
is really about.
The word ``lobbyist'' has become a pejorative word associated with
evil doing. The idea of petitioning your Government is a very important
right, but I don't think it necessarily means that petitioning your
Government gives you the right to then necessarily be able to give
gifts or provide meals to the person whom you are petitioning. The
average person can't do that. We don't think lobbyists should be able
to do so as well.
Our language very simply takes it off the table. It is the cleanest
way to do it. I know there are fact situations that our colleagues can
identify that are probably going to be disadvantageous to them, but
overall I think we are better off without this. It is cleaner. It is a
bright line. Let there be no questions about it whatsoever; if you are
a registered lobbyist, a foreign agent, then you cannot provide the
meals or the gifts that you have in the past.
As a Member, it is simple. If you are having a meal with them, you
pay for your own meal or set up a meeting where there is not a meal
involved and listen to the petition that that lobbyist wants to bring
to you, what cause he or she wants to make to you. But the idea that
you are going to be able to sit down and break bread at their cost as a
way of engaging in that first-amendment right is something we believe
should be eliminated. We include it with the gifts, generally. The
nexus between giving a gift, buying a meal, and petitioning your
Government cannot be made, in my view, and, therefore, needs to be
separated. Therefore, we have offered this amendment to create that
bright line and to eliminate not only gifts but also clearly to
eliminate the meals as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I echo the comments made by the
Senator from Connecticut. He covered all the salient points. I did so
earlier in a broader discussion on the bill. This really is a tripwire.
The current language could cause all sorts of problems for Members and
staff. The better policy is to simply ban this activity. That does not
mean that you can't go out with people who aren't lobbyists, and if you
have a constituent who has come into town and you can buy them dinner
or lunch and they can buy you dinner or lunch, that is all well and
good but subject to the gift limits that are in place right now. But
when you are in the business of lobbying Members of Congress, as the
Senator from Connecticut said, it does without question present the
perception that there is some undue influence involved with the
purchase of a meal.
I understand that we are talking about small meals as well as large.
But the bottom line is, that perception is
[[Page S1870]]
not helpful to the image of this body. Perception and reality should be
a concern of ours because public confidence in this institution and
those of us in it is vitally important to the success of our democracy.
This is an important measure. It is a small measure but it is important
to get it accomplished. I hope we can do so by consent or by voice
vote. I don't see anybody else on the floor. I don't know if the
Senator from Mississippi wants to speak on this amendment, but I would
like to suggest that we agree to this by voice vote and then have the
Senator from Oklahoma, who has been incredibly patient in waiting to
offer his amendment, be given the right to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for working with me
on this amendment, and I thank my colleagues, Senator McCain from
Arizona and Senator Obama, who have been deeply interested in this
subject matter as well as others. There is a colleague who is thinking
about offering a second-degree amendment to our amendment, so we will
unfortunately not be able to vote on this right now. We are going to be
talking to him to work it out if we can. My hope would be that unless
others want to speak against this, and there may be Members who would
like to speak against it, in which case a recorded vote may be
necessary, but if we no one is objecting to this amendment, my hope is
we can deal with it on a voice vote and get to the next amendment.
I want to move this bill. I don't want to spend the next 2 or 3 weeks
on it. We have major issues that have to be confronted by this body.
This is an important one. I do not minimize it. But my hope is we can
get this dealt with, done, and move on. We have issues that are very
important to the people we represent. My hope is that we don't take too
much time on that, and we can get to those questions.
Mr. LOTT. If I may inquire of the Senator from Connecticut, is he
proposing that we go ahead and accept this on a voice vote?
Mr. DODD. We can't at this point. I have a colleague who wants to
offer a second degree.
Mr. LOTT. Then while the Senator from Connecticut talks to his
colleagues and determines how we can work on that issue, I will make a
few brief remarks.
I want to say, again, to Senator Santorum how much I appreciate the
work he has done. He didn't just try to find a way to give this issue a
hit and miss; he got into great detail. I had a lot of questions as we
went along on different aspects of his proposal. He was always able to
give me thoughtful answers. I appreciate that very much. He worked in
the Rules Committee, offered some amendments that were accepted. And in
this case, he agreed to make it bipartisan, once again, by joining
Senator Dodd on the meals question. I emphasize how much I appreciate
what he has done.
Frankly, I have no problem, personally, with banning lobbyists from
paying for meals. Fine. Anybody around here who knows me at all knows
that I probably do less of that than just about anybody. I have
breakfast with my family: my kids, when they were still living at home
before they went off to college, and my wife now. When the Sun goes
down, I am ready to go home because I believe there is something called
a life, family life. The Senate is not my only life. I think more of my
wife than I do the Senate. I go home every night and eat with my wife.
I recommend a lot of other people doing it instead of going to all
these blame dinners.
I am a little offended at the whole concept that you can be bought by
a meal. I don't get it. That is where I do get upset. I think there are
some things we need to do, should do, can do to make the rules tighter,
to have more clarity, disclosure, transparency with regard to lobbying
reform. I am going to go along with this because, personally, it will
give me a fine excuse just to say ``no.'' But I think we are creating
some unintended problems. The Rules Committee bill says that you must
disclose the cost of such meals that you go to 15 days after you share
the meal. To me, that is better. Are we going to stop eating? It might
be a good idea for some of us, but I have been going to meals where you
talk about issues since I was in elementary school.
Again, I believe in being honest about it, disclose what you are
doing, you have had a meal, whom it was with, and then let your
constituents decide. They don't expect me to come up here and not go to
a luncheon or a meal with school teachers or labor union members or
executives from Northrop Grumman or lobbyists, somebody who represents
a group, cable television. First of all, they are a source of
information. I benefit from it. But I don't just go to lunch to meet
with lobbyists from cable television. I also talk to telephone people.
You talk to everybody. That is what our republican form of Government
is all about. People are here to try to find out the details of issues
and then try to cast an intelligent vote. The very idea that if I sit
down with them or go to lunch with them or go to a dinner, which I
generally don't, that is somehow questionable--no Senators are running
up tabs of hundreds of thousands of dollars at the expense of
lobbyists.
By the way, the rules now say that the maximum value of a meal we can
receive from a lobbyist is less than $50. I don't know that that is a
great meal, but you could have a pretty good meal. Being a guy who
likes hamburgers and pizzas, I am very happy to get a meal of less than
50 bucks. But I do think if we call for a ban on all these meals, that
we are going to have some unintended problems for ourselves and our
staffs.
What happens if you go to a luncheon that is sponsored by a lobbyist
organization, maybe it is under $50, maybe you get a box lunch. Are we
going to be scurrying around saying, what is my pro rata share of this
lunch? Maybe we shouldn't go to these policy luncheons. That is what is
going to happen. Or you go and you don't eat. It is totally ludicrous
that we are doing this.
But my attitude is, fine, if that is what the Senators want to do for
themselves, no skin off my back. But I do think we are going to regret
this, and we are going to look small. Not this amendment or the
Senators involved, who are well intentioned, but I think we demean
ourselves by inferring that we could be had for the price of a lunch or
a dinner. That is not the case.
Having said that, it is clear that in a bipartisan way the Senate
wants to do this. So be it. I will be eating with my wife and so will a
lot more Senators after we pass this one.
Madam President, could I inquire, are we ready to deal with this
amendment? Do we want to set it aside and go to another amendment?
Mr. DODD. If my colleague would withhold, maybe we can temporarily
set this aside if Senator Inhofe wanted to go forward with his
amendment. He can explain his amendment. If the Senator would withhold
a minute, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator withhold on that?
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest to the Senator that if the
Senator wants to offer a second-degree amendment, it sounds like it
could be offered to just about every other amendment pending.
Mr. DODD. And he could offer it as a first degree, also.
Mr. INHOFE. If he should come on the floor--he or she--with a second-
degree amendment, I would be glad to suspend.
Mr. DODD. My colleague is on his way over to offer the second-degree
amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, Senator Inhofe has been so helpful and
understanding. We have kind of, because of the effort to go back and
forth, pushed him aside. I ask that in view of the fact that we are
waiting for a Senator to arrive--I think the amendment Senator Inhofe
wants to offer can probably be accepted. Would it be possible to ask
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and go to the
Inhofe amendment and be prepared to come back to the pending amendment?
Mr. DODD. That is fine.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I make that unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2934
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I ask to bring up my
amendment, No. 2934.
[[Page S1871]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 2934.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To deny Members who oppose Congressional COLA's the increase)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. __. AMOUNTS OF COLA ADJUSTMENTS NOT PAID TO CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Any adjustment under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31)
(relating to the cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) shall not be paid to any Member of Congress who
voted for any amendment (or against the tabling of any
amendment) that provided that such adjustment would not be
made.
(b) Deposit in Treasury.--Any amount not paid to a Member
of Congress under subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the
Treasury for deposit in the appropriations account under the
subheading ``medical services'' under the heading ``Veterans
Health Administration''.
(c) Administration.--The salary of any Member of Congress
to whom subsection (a) applies shall be deemed to be the
salary in effect after the application of that subsection,
except that for purposes of determining any benefit
(including any retirement or insurance benefit), the salary
of that Member of Congress shall be deemed to be the salary
that Member of Congress would have received, but for that
subsection.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or
after February 1, 2007.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. I have
always felt that the greatest single hypocrisy every year is when
Members come up and vote to exempt Members of Congress from a cost-of-
living increase. The hypocrisy comes in when all the press releases hit
the home State and they talk about how great this is, saying they are
great reformers and then, of course, it is defeated and they end up
taking the increase anyway.
Basically, what this does is say if you vote in favor of an increase
by voting against an exemption of Congress, then you are not entitled
to the increase. It is as simple as that. I say this, too: I love the
Kennedys and the Rockefellers, but I don't think you should have to be
a Kennedy or a Rockefeller to serve in this body. I can think of many
people, such as Senator Dan Coats--Democrats and Republicans alike
would hold him up and say there is a guy who was an outstanding Member
and he had to quit because of his kids getting up to college age, and
he knew he would be able to make enough money to send them to school
outside of serving in the Senate.
If there is ever any transparency in stopping hypocrisy, that is what
this would be. I am glad to have this in the mix, and when the
appropriate time comes, I will call for a vote. It doesn't necessarily
have to be a rollcall vote. I will leave that up to the leadership.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank Senator Inhofe for being
cooperative and bearing with us. I am glad we were able to get this
amendment on the record. I voted for this before. I think Senator Pat
Moynihan one time rose up in indignation and suggested an amendment of
this type, and I voted for it.
I think it is well intentioned, something that we will need to think
about and work on the exact language. I would propose, if Senator Dodd
wants to be heard on it, OK; but if we can accept it after that, I
recommend that we do that.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his patience this
morning. He has been here a long time. He had several amendments he
wanted to offer. Again, having been here as many years as I have been,
I have voted for and against cost-of-living increases, depending on
whether I thought they were appropriate. Many times I voted for them
and other colleagues voted against them. To their credit, some of our
affluent Members have voted for pay increases when they clearly could
have avoided it. I mention my colleague from Massachusetts. I know in
my experience here, on every occasion--there may be some exception--he
has voted for them when he believed pay increases were warranted. Even
though he may not have needed it himself, he understands that not
everybody is equal when it comes to financial situations. I have had
those feelings myself. I voted against these pay increases and then
having blinked when it comes to taking the pay increase.
If you feel that strongly about it and you think it is the wrong
thing to do, nothing prohibits you from turning in your pay increase.
You can write a check to the Department of Treasury and they will
accept your check. People leave in their wills their hard-earned
dollars to the Federal Government. On several occasions I have read
that people have actually done that. Nothing prohibits Members from
doing that. So I am very moved by what my colleague from Oklahoma is
saying, and we may want to wait until we have disposed of the Reid
amendment so you can talk to colleagues as to how they feel about it.
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I want to get a vote. If I had
a chance to make my full remarks, I would go into more detail. I am one
of the fortunate ones who have other sources of income. As most of you
know, I also do things that go to charity. I am probably a logical one
to introduce this. I have heard several Members on your side of the
aisle say they are supportive, and I anticipate they will be adding
their names as cosponsors of this amendment before it comes up for a
vote.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I believe there is objection to accepting
it at this time. I hope we will be able to get that worked out. If not,
the Senator can speak at length. I feel so strongly about it, I ask
unanimous consent that my name be included as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will soon ask unanimous consent to set
aside the Inhofe amendment and return to the pending amendment, the
Santorum/Dodd or the Dodd/Santorum amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we have checked on both sides of the aisle
and we are, I believe, clear now to accept the Inhofe amendment. I urge
that the Inhofe amendment be accepted by a voice vote.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I support that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.
The amendment (No. 2934) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2942, as Modified
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we are back to the Dodd-Santorum
amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, once again, let me thank my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, Senator Dodd for his efforts, and Senator
Feingold for his cooperation in getting an agreement to move forward
with the pending amendment. The pending issue is the Dodd-Santorum
amendment, and I believe we are clear now to act on that amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote. Again, I thank my
colleagues. I think this is a good amendment. I appreciate my colleague
from
[[Page S1872]]
Pennsylvania as well as my colleague from Illinois, and my home State
colleague, Senator Lieberman, and Senator McCain, who have joined as
cosponsors. I think we have made a good case for it, the bright line to
get rid of the tripwires. That is a word you will hear me use quite
frequently during the course of this discussion. We need clear, bright
lines. We are not trying to complicate or make life difficult for
people, but we are trying to make sure we have some very clear
understandings as to what is permissible or not permissible in the
conduct of our official business. So I thank my colleagues for their
support.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before we move
to the amendment at hand, Senator Feingold have his amendment in order
following the Santorum-McCain amendment, and we will put it in the
queue at that point. If it turns out not to be, we will work with the
Senator at a later time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will not object, let me say I appreciate the work of the Senators on
this. Clearly what Senator Dodd did is an improvement. I, however,
believe we need to do more. I don't see this as a question of
tripwires. What I see this as is a question of whether certain often
well-to-do individuals who work for companies, who are not themselves
registered lobbyists, be able to take Members of Congress out to lunch
without the Member paying his own way for dinner, and I want to offer
an amendment on that. But I want to acknowledge that Senator Dodd has
achieved a significant step in the right direction.
I will offer my approach to this a bit later.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could modify my request, since I
understand we had not gotten an agreement formally locked in. But after
we dispose of the Dodd-Santorum amendment and the Wyden-Grassley
amendment, the next amendment to be in order is the Santorum-McCain
amendment, to be followed by the Feingold amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2942, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dodd
amendment No. 2942, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2942), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________