[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1945-S1948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I switched my vote from an ``aye'' to a 
``no'' vote for procedural reasons so that I would have the opportunity 
as leader to bring the cloture vote back at some time in the future. I 
did support cloture, but for procedural reasons I switched that vote to 
a ``no.''
  What that means is that over the next several days, after talking to 
the four managers who are working together in a cooperative, bipartisan 
way, once we can put together a group of amendments and packages of 
amendments, I, in all likelihood, will bring that cloture vote back, 
and we will be on the glidepath to completing this very important bill.
  Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Very quickly, and then I have a statement to make.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader might give 
us an idea because we would like to get back to the bill. As one of the 
managers, my hope would be that we can get back to it right away. I 
would like to see us clean up this bill and get it done as soon as 
possible.
  Could you give us some sense of when you think we might do that? I 
know there are a lot of matters to deal with, but this is very 
important.
  Mr. FRIST. I would bring it back right now if I had the votes. We 
need to have the managers working together and stressing the importance 
that when we start our business, we need to finish it. This is no fault 
of the managers. They have done a superb job. We had a totally 
unrelated amendment injected, I believe, for partisan purposes. I say 
that and put it aside.
  We need to get back to the bill as soon as possible. I encourage the 
managers to get the list of amendments, continue working, and at the 
first available time when we are allowed to proceed, we will be on that 
bill and we will finish it. I think we can finish it in less than a 
day.
  Mr. DODD. Would it be possible, since this issue is one that many 
Members care about--in fact, the vote of the House Appropriations 
Committee yesterday was 62 to 2 on a similar provision, and I know 
there is talk of a resolution of this matter without ever going to the 
bill. But if we can agree that next week or so we might allocate an 
hour or two to do that, my view is we can move forward today and clean 
up this lobbying reform issue quickly--by agreeing to an hour or so 
next week to deal with this issue, if necessary, and we can move 
through this bill, I think, by tonight.
  Mr. FRIST. What we have seen in the last hour is that there is a 
press announcement from DP World, and the Senator from Virginia, I 
believe, read that press announcement that ``DP World decided to 
transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America to a 
United States entity.'' I am reading from the press release.
  This should make the issue go away. On the other hand, that was an 
hour ago. It brings me back to the point that the DP World issue and 
port security and the CFIUS reform is underway. The process is moving 
quickly. We don't have to have votes on the floor of the Senate and 
disrupt your bill, our bill, which is another very important issue that 
the Democratic leadership and ours agree should be early. This body 
wanted to have working groups and, under your leadership, hold hearings 
and come to the floor, so we are committed to finishing it. We don't 
need to be dealing with something which is being dealt with, as we see 
through press releases, through meetings with the company, and a port 
security bill that we are addressing in the Commerce Committee and the 
CFIUS process reform being addressed in Banking Committee. That is 
underway.
  We don't need to disrupt the bill. I think the distinguished manager 
and I are on the exact same page. Within several days, I think we will 
be able to work this out. I encourage the managers to work together so 
that when we bring it back, we can finish expeditiously. Next week, we 
have the budget and the debt ceiling and lobbying reform.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the leader. I was suggesting that, if necessary, if 
we could agree to an hour or two after this bill is considered--and you 
may be right that we would not have to--then we might get to this 
reform bill today. That is all it would take to do so. We have taken 
the position that extraneous matters should not be on the bill.
  My fear is--and I say this having been around here a quarter of a 
century--once you bump this off, the budget issue next week, 
immigration, and a recess for a week or two, we will not get back to 
this. If we don't stick to this, other matters can take over--another 
explosion somewhere in the world--and this institution finds 
itself dealing with a issue that would not be the lobbying reform 
issue. I have seen it happen so many times. Here is an opportunity, I 
say with all due respect, to

[[Page S1946]]

give us that assurance, if necessary, and let us get back to the bill.

  Mr. FRIST. With all due respect, there is no reason to give that 
assurance now. This is on a glidepath, based on what we have heard in 
the last 2 hours, to take care of itself. Again, it is through no fault 
of the managers of lobbying reform--on either side of the aisle--that 
we are where we are today. It is because we have had this extraneous 
issue injected into the system, which gummed up the works, and it is 
being resolved as we speak.
  I just wish that amendment had not come to the floor. We were the 
first to put lobbying reform on the Congress's agenda. We were first to 
hold hearings, under the leadership of the distinguished chairmen. We 
were the first to mark up and the first to act, all as a result of the 
majority deciding that this is an important issue. The issue of 
Government reform is a key agenda item to help restore trust and faith 
in our Government.
  I have to say that yesterday was a spectacular display, with the 
Senator from New York taking advantage of the goodwill that had been 
generated as we were moving forward together, which has led us to the 
point that we have had the cloture vote today.
  I have been crystal clear throughout that when it comes to the port 
deal, Congress needs all of the facts. We don't have all of the facts. 
We are learning about them through press releases as we speak. But we 
are getting the facts by having this 45-day intensive review period, 
focused on the security issue. I think Congress is, at the appropriate 
time, going to need to make an independent judgment. Obviously, I don't 
believe it is today because we don't have the facts today. To take 
people in this body and say let's vote on something, let's kill the 
deal, or let's grandstand on it is just not appropriate for this body. 
Let's get the information into the system, and that strategy is 
underway.
  Mr. President, we will keep working. We have a lot to do, and I look 
forward to staying above the issues of gumming up the system and let's 
move forward as we address these important issues that focus on 
restoring trust in this Government--lobbying reform, the bill at hand, 
and the budget of the country, which we will do next week, and facing 
the debt ceiling limit and taking appropriate action both in discussing 
and passing a statute that will raise that ceiling.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the leader for responding to several 
questions. I appreciate that very much. I don't disagree. In fact, this 
may be very good news that we have heard in the last hour or so about 
the port security issue. Like all of us, I think the leader said it 
well. The devil can be in the details here. We are going to want to 
examine what was included there.
  As I understood, my colleague from New York and the Democratic leader 
were willing to forgo offering this amendment that Senator Schumer has 
proposed on this bill for the simple assurance that, if necessary, they 
would like the opportunity to bring this up at a later time.
  Many of us applauded that decision. In fact, the Democratic leader 
offered a unanimous consent request that would have done that, it would 
allow us to get back to the reform bill.
  I see a number of my colleagues here. My colleague from Maine knows 
as well as I do these things can slip, and once they start to slip, 
other matters can overtake us, and we don't get back to the matter. We 
have seen it on asbestos and other matters. I am worried that will 
happen if we allow too much time to pass before we get back to the 
legislation.
  I made the appeal earlier today to reach some accommodation among the 
leaders so we will be allowed to go forward with this bill that the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee worked so hard on 
and the Rules Committee worked so hard on. We did our job.
  I think we can get this done in fairly short order. My colleague from 
Georgia was involved, as well, in the Rules Committee trying to put 
this together.
  Again, I make the plea, I don't think there is any necessity at this 
juncture for the Schumer amendment to come up on this bill, but I think 
my colleagues can understand why the Senator from New York would like 
some assurance down the road, if necessary, that we can get to this 
particular proposal. It is not an extraordinary request. We do this all 
the time. That would allow us to move forward on this bill and try to 
keep extraneous matters off until we have completed the bill.
  I thank the majority leader for responding to my questions. I am 
disappointed, to put it mildly, that we are not going to get to this 
bill. I raise the concern, having been here for some time and having 
watched the process work, that if we don't proceed quickly on this 
measure, then my fear is that we will not get back to it, and the 
window of opportunity to have done something on these critical issues 
will have been lost.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, 
the ranking member on the Rules Committee on which I serve, and Senator 
Lott, as well as Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, for their 
leadership on this issue. It has not been easy to get to the point 
where we are today. I am very disappointed we are not going to be able 
to finish this bill tonight, even though I am fixing to talk on it. I 
am not particularly happy with what is in this bill, but at least 
getting through the process, having the debate is extremely important.
  I am very hopeful we can get this issue relative to Dubai resolved, 
and quickly return to lobby reform legislation and complete it in short 
order.
  I do think we have seen strong, very positive leadership out of the 
Rules Committee chairman and ranking member, as well as the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman and ranking 
member.
  In thinking about this bill, I am concerned we are losing sight of 
something I think is very important. And which is putting in place 
today, a system which deals with both Members of Congress and outside 
lobbyists and how they interact.
  How lobbyist treat Members of Congress and how we react to lobbyists 
from the standpoint of whether you call it favors or being receptive to 
demands or requests of lobbyists. The system we have in place today is 
working.
  What generated this concern that we have seen on the floor this week 
and the dialog we have seen over the past few months on this particular 
issue? It was triggered by one particular man who was very egregious in 
the way he operated his lobbying shop. He appears to have been 
motivated by greed, not just operating outside the spirit of the law, 
but outside the letter of the law, even to the point of committing some 
criminal activity. In fact, he has pled guilty, and he is undoubtedly 
going to jail. I don't know that for certain, but I think it is a safe 
assumption.
  The system, as it pertained to lobbyist, worked. But what about 
Members of Congress? Another incident that sparked debate was the 
activity of some other Members of Congress, particularly Members on the 
House side.
  I don't think anybody on this side has even been implicated in this 
at this point. But there has been some activity on the other side that 
indicates that maybe some favors were given to lobbyists for 
consideration. In fact, there has been a guilty plea to that effect.
  What has happened to that Member of Congress? That Member of Congress 
is going to jail--for a long time. That is the way the system is 
designed to work. That is the way it is working and, unfortunately, all 
of that casts a real shadow on the institution that those of us who 
have been privileged to serve here know and for which we have such 
great respect.
  There is a situation, I think, where we have a solution that is 
looking for a problem. I will give a classic example of that.
  Some have said: We think lobbyists who are former Members who utilize 
the gym are having an undue influence or the potential to have undue 
influence. Therefore, we are going to ban former Members who are 
lobbyists from using the gym. We also are going to ban former Members 
who become lobbyist from coming on the floor.

[[Page S1947]]

  What is ironic is there are two former Members of the House of 
Representatives today who are in jail for different reasons. But when 
they are released from prison, those two individuals will have the 
right to use the House gym and to have access to the House floor. Yet 
former Members of the House who served with great distinction on both 
sides of the aisle who have the opportunity to go outside and make some 
money in whatever chosen field they want--and they happen to have 
chosen lobbying--they can't come on the floor of the House and can't be 
Members of the House gym. This proposal is a solution without a 
problem, irrespective of how one looks at it.

  I have a personal situation. As the Senator from Connecticut said, I 
serve on the Rules Committee. I talked about this a little bit as we 
were going through the markup and debating this bill. There are a 
number of Members of this body who have either spouses or children who 
are lobbyists. My son happens to be a lawyer who does lobbying, and I 
am very proud of him. He works hard and does very well. I was a Member 
of the Senate before he made the decision to become a lobbyist.
  At the time he made that decision, I went to Members on both sides of 
the aisle, and I said: Here's my deal. I have to figure this out 
somehow. It was recommended to me by folks on both sides of the aisle 
that I needed to go to the Ethics Committee and detail the facts of the 
situation and have it tell me what we could and could not do relative 
to my son being a lobbyist and having the potential of lobbying me or 
having contacts with me or my staff.
  Before he accepted the job, I asked for and received a letter from 
the Ethics Committee defining what contact was permissible. We have 
strictly adhered to the terms of the letter. There is no discussion 
between the two of us relative to issues. He does not lobby me. He does 
not lobby my staff. While it gets very ticklish at times when people he 
works with come to my office to lobby me, if he accompanies them, he 
has to either stand out in the hall or go down the hall to the 
bathroom. I am not sure what he does, but he doesn't come in to lobby 
me, it is a little bit awkward from their standpoint. But that's the 
way it has to work, and that is the way it is going to continue to 
work.
  With the passage of this bill, what changes? What changes is that we 
are taking the Ethics Committee letter that I have, that Senator Reid 
has, whose sons are lobbyists, that Senator Lott has, whose son is a 
lobbyist, and at least a dozen or 15 other Members of this body have, 
and it codifies the terms of the letters. All of a sudden, it makes it 
subject not only to a potential $200,000 fine, but criminal sanctions 
as well.
  Figure this: We are in a very partisan political time in this 
country. Because of partisanship, often without merit, ethics charges 
can often--and it happens more on the House side, than it does over 
here--fly back and forth. For example, if I am at dinner with my son 
and somebody happens to be at a table next to me and think they hear 
conversation which they believe to be improper, but which was in fact 
not improper at all.
  All of a sudden I am thrown in a situation where I have to defend 
myself, not before the Ethics Committee but from a civil sanction, as 
well as a potential criminal sanction. To say that can't happen in 
today's climate, I think we are kidding ourselves.
  The same thing could happen to every other Member here. And I don't 
know of any Member who has ever violated the ethical rule relative to 
lobbying on the part of spouses or children.
  To those folks who say this can't happen, let me tell you what 
happened to me this week, and it is a pretty good example of what can 
happen in these very difficult, these very complex, and these very 
partisan political times.
  There is a lot of current discussion about Members taking trips on 
corporate aircraft. All of us--I assume all of us--at one time or 
another have used private aircraft. Congress has rules governing this 
practice which we must abide by.
  I, like many of my colleagues, live in a rural area. I don't have 
commercial service to many areas of my state including my hometown. I 
also happen to represent the largest State east of the Mississippi 
River. If I want to go from point A to point B, whether it is on 
official business or on campaign business, it is often necessary to use 
private or chartered aircraft and I have to pay for it. The rules 
require it, and we pay for it.
  The important point about it is, we disclose every bit of that 
information. We have a form we are required to file every year 
regarding every trip--where it was, where you went, what it was for, 
and how much you were required to pay for it, and how much you did pay 
for it. All of that is on our public disclosure forms.
  This week, a group called Political Money Line issued a statement in 
which they said--of course, it was generated by the debate on the floor 
this week; otherwise it probably never would have come up. Political 
Money Line is, according to its statement, a company that provides 
comprehensive campaign finance and lobbying data to more than 500 
clients, ranging from trade groups to the national political parties. 
So it has over 500 folks to whom they sent out not only a notice but 
also did some sort of press release or a release that at least got to 
the press which indicated that this Member of the Senate was the No. 1 
user of corporate aircraft of all active Senators; that from the period 
2001 through the 2005, I had flown over 60 times in corporate aircraft, 
according to the disclosure that I had filed, and that I had to pay in 
excess of $100,000. To make it exact, they said $101,795 for 
utilization of corporate aircraft.
  I knew there was something wrong with that because that would have 
meant that during the 5-year period, I would have had to have flown on 
a corporate aircraft once a month, every month, for 5 years. And I knew 
I had not done that. So we made inquiry of Political Money Line as to 
where it got its information and what information did it use in 
calculating these numbers.
  First of all, they told us: We will be glad to give you that 
information provided you pay a $2,000 subscription fee. I didn't think 
that was exactly right.
  At the end of the day, they were cooperative, and they did provide us 
the information. As it turns out, just like I thought, the information 
was wrong.
  The fact of the matter is that they said, according to their 
calculations, I had reported 60 reimbursements for use of corporate 
aircraft. In fact, they now have agreed that only 17 of those trips 
should have been credited to me. The other 43 reimbursements should 
have been credited to another or other Members of the Senate. And of 
those 17, on one occasion--I used corporate aircraft for a fundraiser 
in Florida--I sent three Members of the Senate down there and paid 
their way. That is a customary thing that happens. I flew commercial, 
but I paid their way.
  The numbers were so out of line and so egregious that I don't mind 
telling you I got infuriated, and the more I think about it right now, 
I get even more infuriated about it because what happened was, once 
they put this information out, it was picked up by the New York Times. 
They did a story yesterday in which I was quoted as saying the solution 
to this problem is disclosure. And then they said, according to the 
Political Money Line, that I am the No. 1 abuser of utilization of 
corporate aircraft that is active in the Senate, and they were dead 
wrong.
  Now the genie is out of the bottle, and the New York Times story has 
gone all over the country. It is in U.S. News & World Report. How do 
you get the genie back in the bottle? Well, you don't, and that is the 
unfortunate part about this. There was some irresponsible activity on 
the part of this group that, frankly, will be a political problem 
because the 527 operated by former Democratic National Committee 
individuals has already taken a shot at me as a result of this. We are 
all big boys in the Senate. We have been through political wars, and I 
always am prepared for criticism that may arise. But when the criticism 
is absolutely false, then it does infuriate you because there is no way 
you can accurately get information out once it has gotten out in the 
way this did.

  When we talked to them about it yesterday and talked to them about it 
again today, they are agreeing to come back now and to correct their 
figures and to do a release. They have already done that. They have 
called the New York Times, according to the reporter

[[Page S1948]]

I saw today. In spite of the fact that they will do another article 
now, the Political Money Line folks have admitted to making mistakes.
  In any event, instead of being the No. 1 active Member of the Senate 
relative to utilization of corporate aircraft, according to their 
calculations, I would be No. 28. Under their calculations, instead of 
$101,000, it should have been $18,000. That is how egregious this 
situation has become.
  Now what happens in the case of this sort of thing relative to what 
we have on the floor today? Well, here is the way I look at this, and I 
have talked with people all across my State about this. Are folks 
concerned about Members of Congress and ethics? You bet. Is there 
anybody in this Senate who campaigned on the fact that, You send me to 
Washington, you send me to the Senate, and, boy, I will get lobbyist 
reform? I think the answer to that question is absolutely not. That is 
not a typical campaign platform. Does everybody in this Senate go home 
and talk about what is going on in Iraq? Have any of us campaigned on 
what is happening in Iraq? You bet. People care about that. Are people 
upset about what is going on relative to the ports issue and the 
potential for Dubai to purchase the managerial contract for the six 
ports in the United States? You bet. People care about that.
  People expect us, as Members of the Senate, to act in an ethical way. 
And those of us who have this unique problem, whether it is relative to 
a spouse or a child, in my opinion, must have acted in an ethical way 
because I don't know of any situation where what has happened as an 
ethical complaint has been brought forward. People do expect us to be 
ethical, and those of us who have this situation work very hard to make 
sure we are.
  So I would hope since we are not going to be voting on this matter 
today, we may not be voting on it next week--I don't know when it will 
come up again--but I am very hopeful that the Members of this body will 
think through this and that we will look at legislation that 
encompasses issues such as Senator McCain has talked about on earmarks. 
I think if you are going to reform Congress, which is what I think is 
most necessary, then reforming the earmark process is necessary. 
Senator McCain talks about this every year during the appropriations 
process, and this year I think he is getting everybody's attention. 
That should be reformed. There are other issues in this congressional 
reform we ought to pay attention to. But I will have to tell you that 
if we are going to have irresponsible acts by folks who are taking 
information we disclose under the congressional reform action, whatever 
ultimate legislation may come out of this body, and they are going to 
utilize it in a wrong way, then it may be time we looked at taking some 
action against folks who do that as well as having the potential to 
take action against Members of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield back, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________