[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2435-S2436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       LOBBYING AND RULES REFORM

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all of our 
colleagues, we should be getting some indication from our leadership 
soon as to when and how we will proceed on the lobbying and rules 
reform legislation. Of course, a major part of our time this week will 
necessarily be involved in considering the immigration reform 
legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a 
bipartisan vote on Monday night. But I do think that we should go back 
to this very important issue also, which has been pending now for 3 
weeks.
  This is a bipartisan piece of legislation from two different 
committees. It is one of those rare but blessed occasions when 
Republican and Democrat, chairman and ranking members, can work 
together. Senator Dodd and I worked together on this legislation, along 
with Senator Feinstein and other Democrats, to shape the package that 
came out of the Rules Committee. Senator Collins, the chairman of the 
very important Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
was able to get legislation out of her committee working with Senator 
Lieberman of Connecticut. Good work is being done. We were making 
progress and were about to get into a position where we could have 
wrapped the legislation up in a couple of days.
  However, Senator Schumer proposed an amendment involving the Dubai 
World ports issue, and that caused the legislation to be stopped. That 
issue now is being dealt with by transferring the responsibility for 
the operations of those terminals to domestic companies. So that issue 
is being addressed, for now. I believe Senator Schumer has

[[Page S2436]]

indicated that he is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can go 
forward.
  The pending business then would be the Wyden amendment on the issue 
of holds and how secret holds could be dealt with in this body. Some 
Senators have some concerns about the amendment. I would like for us to 
step up and address that issue and work with our leaders. That is a 
Rules Committee issue and I have held a hearing on the issue of holds. 
I support the Wyden-Grassley approach, but I think that when it 
involves rules that directly impact how the Senate operates day-to-day, 
the leaders of our two parties in the Senate have to have major input 
in how we deal with the issue in the future.

  There are other issues that are pending that have interest and 
support. Obviously, one of those is the amendment by Senator Collins 
and Senator Lieberman dealing with establishing a new Office of Public 
Integrity. That issue was considered in their committee, and they would 
like for it to be considered on the floor. I certainly understand that 
and would be supportive of that because it is supported by these two 
leaders of that committee. But we have 77 amendments filed as first-
degree amendments, most of which are not germane to the bill. So I have 
to ask my colleagues: Are we serious about lobbying reform and rules 
reform?
  There are some good things in here. I don't support all of them, and 
on a bill of this magnitude nobody is going to support all of it. But I 
think we need to step up and resolve these issues. We do need reform in 
the lobbying area and some changes in the rules especially in the area 
of disclosure. We also need a mechanism to deal with earmarks that have 
not been considered by either the House or the Senate, and then are 
inserted in conference reports.
  We are going to have to deal with all these issues sooner or later. 
We can do it now or we can do it later. Some people I suspect hope this 
entire package of reforms will slide off the face of the Earth and 
disappear. It is not going to. It is here, and it is going to come 
back. We can do it today if the leaders give us that charge or we can 
come back to it later as filler or we can be the legislative yo-yo. But 
this issue is going to be dealt with. I hope we can come up with a way 
to get it done even today, if possible.
  We have actually lost a full day. We could have been working on this 
yesterday afternoon. We could have been working on it this morning. 
There are other issues that are of interest and concern to the Members 
and to the leaders, so I understand how that goes. But if every Senator 
presumes to offer his or her amendment and demand a recorded vote, we 
will not ever finish it. Maybe the American people are not that 
focused. Obviously, when I was home I got a lot of questions about 
immigration, about taxes, but I got one call, just one, about this 
bill. It was from somebody who was concerned about something they hoped 
we would not put in the bill. Actually, it was a lobbyist, and I didn't 
even agree with what he was saying.

  I think we should reconsider the cloture vote as soon as possible. I 
will support it no matter at what point it occurs. We can consider two 
or three of these amendments or several of them or not. But we need to 
step up to the issue, vote cloture, and complete this legislation as 
soon as possible.
  I ask my colleagues: Who wants to take the blame for not getting this 
done? I was very disturbed about the way this was brought to a halt 
because I had yielded for what I was clearly told were going to be 
comments and all of a sudden, we were hit with a second-degree 
amendment that had no applicability to this at all.
  We need to get together in a bipartisan way to address this issue, 
and we need to do it now. If we do not, somebody is going to have to 
explain it. The way I will explain it is not going to be positive 
because we have a commitment and we need to go forward with it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________