[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2490-S2511]
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.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 2930, 2965, 2995, En Bloc

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Obama, of Illinois, I 
ask that it be in order to call up three amendments, and once the 
amendments are reported, that they may be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I call up amendments No. 2930, No. 2965, and No. 2995.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Obama, 
     proposes amendments numbered 2930, 2965, 2995, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2930

(Purpose: To clarify that availability of legislation does not include 
                           nonbusiness days)

       On page 5, line 21, after ``hours'' insert ``or 1 business 
     day, whichever is longer,''.
       On page 6, line 7, after ``hours'' insert ``or 1 business 
     day, whichever is longer,''.


                           amendment no. 2965

(Purpose: To ban employment negotiations to become lobbyists by Members 
 of Congress and required recusal for senior congressional staff while 
                               in office)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. BAN ON IN OFFICE EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATIONS.

       (a) Senate.--Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``13. (a) A member of the Senate shall not negotiate or 
     have any arrangement concerning prospective private 
     employment if a conflict of interest or an appearance of a 
     conflict of interest might exist.
       ``(b) An employee of the Senate earning in excess of 75 
     percent of the salary paid to a Senator shall recuse himself 
     or herself from working on legislation if a conflict of 
     interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest might 
     exist as a result of negotiations for prospective private 
     employment.
       ``(c) The Select Committee on Ethics shall develop 
     guidelines concerning conduct which is covered by this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Criminal Provision.--Section 208 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Prohibition on Employment Negotiations While in 
     Office.--
       ``(1) In general.--No officer or employee of the executive 
     branch of the United States Government, an independent agency 
     of the United States, or the Federal Reserve, who is 
     compensated at a rate of Executive Schedule Level I, II, or 
     III, shall negotiate or have any arrangement concerning 
     prospective private employment if a conflict of interest or 
     an appearance of a conflict of interest might exist, as 
     determined by the Office of Government Ethics.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A violation of this subsection shall be 
     punished as provided in section 216.''.

[[Page S2491]]

                           amendment no. 2995

   (Purpose: To expand the prohibition on lobbying in the year after 
    leaving service to the Senate to include a prohibition on paid 
                        coordination activities)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON PAID COORDINATION LOBBYING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``13. A Member of the Senate or an employee of the Senate 
     earning in excess of 75 percent of the salary paid to a 
     Senator shall not engage in paid lobbying activity in the 
     year after leaving the employment of the Senate, which shall 
     include the development, coordination, or supervision of 
     strategy or activity for the purpose of influencing 
     legislation before either House of Congress.''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2960

  Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Levin of Michigan, I call up amendment 
No. 2960, and once it is reported, I ask that it be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2960.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2960

(Purpose: To require electronic filing and establish a public database 
                 for lobbyists for foreign governments)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. ELECTRONIC FILING AND PUBLIC DATABASE FOR LOBBYISTS 
                   FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Electronic Filing.--Section 2 of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 612) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Electronic Filing of Registration Statements and 
     Updates.--A registration statement or update required to be 
     filed under this section shall be filed in electronic form, 
     in addition to any other form that may be required by the 
     Attorney General.''.
       (b) Public Database.--Section 6 of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 616) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Public Database of Registration Statements and 
     Updates.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall maintain, and 
     make available to the public over the Internet, without a fee 
     or other access charge, in a searchable, sortable, and 
     downloadable manner, an electronic database that--
       ``(A) includes the information contained in registration 
     statements and updates filed under this Act;
       ``(B) directly links the information it contains to the 
     information disclosed in reports filed with the Federal 
     Election Commission under section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434); and
       ``(C) is searchable and sortable, at a minimum, by each of 
     the categories of information described in section 2(a).
       ``(2) Accountability.--Each registration statement and 
     update filed in electronic form pursuant to section 2(g) 
     shall be made available for public inspection over the 
     internet not more than 48 hours after the registration 
     statement or update is filed.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside without objection.


                           Amendment No. 2963

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I call up 
amendment No. 2963, and once it is reported, I ask that it be set aside 
as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2963.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 2963

     (Purpose: To remove lobbyists all together from Member trips)

       On page 9, after line 10, insert the following:
       ``(iii) the trip was not planned, organized, or arranged by 
     or at the request of a registered lobbyist or foreign agent 
     and
       ``(iv) registered lobbyists will not participate in or 
     attend the trip;''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside without objection.


                 Amendments Nos. 3181 and 3182, En Bloc

  Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Byrd of West Virginia, I ask that it 
be in order to call up two amendments, and once the amendments are 
reported, that they be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I call up amendment No. 3181 and amendment No. 3182.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3181 and 3182, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3181

      (Purpose: To clarify the termination date of the Commission)

       On page 50, strike lines 8 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Final report.--Two years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress a final 
     report containing information described in subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3182

      (Purpose: To clarify the subpoena powers of the Commission)

       On page 46, after line 7, insert the following:
       (d) Limit on Commission Authority.--The Commission shall 
     not conduct any law enforcement investigation, function as a 
     court of law, or otherwise usurp the duties and 
     responsibilities of the ethics committee of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate.
       Strike Sec. 266(a)(2) and (b).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are set aside without 
objection.


  Amendments Nos. 2980, 2981, 2983, 2961, 3175, 2970, 2936, 2937, and 
                             2982, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
following amendments en bloc and that they be temporarily set aside 
after they have been called up: amendments Nos. 2980, 2981 and 2893, 
introduced by Senator Ensign; amendment No. 2961, introduced by Senator 
Cornyn; amendment No. 3175, introduced by Senator Coburn; amendment No. 
2970, introduced by Senator Sununu; and amendments Nos. 2936, 2937, and 
2982, these by Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2980

  (Purpose: To include Federal entities in the definition of earmarks)

       On page 5, line 2 strike ``a non-Federal'' and insert 
     ``an''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2981

     (Purpose: To clarify the treatment of out of scope matters in 
                          conference reports)

       On page 3, strike line 9 and all that follows through page 
     4, line 20, and insert the following:
       (a) In General.--A point of order may be made by any 
     Senator against consideration of a conference report that 
     includes any new or general legislation, any unauthorized 
     appropriation, or new matter or nongermane matter not 
     committed to the conferees by either House. The point of 
     order shall be made and voted on separately for each item in 
     violation of this section.
       (b) Disposition.--If the point of order against a 
     conference report under subsection (a) is sustained, then--
       (1) the matter in such conference report shall be deemed to 
     have been struck;
       (2) when all other points of order under this section have 
     been disposed of--
       (A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of 
     whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the 
     House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the 
     House, and concur with a further amendment, which further 
     amendment shall consist of only that portion of the 
     conference report not deemed to have been struck;
       (B) the question shall be debatable; and
       (C) no further amendment shall be in order; and
       (3) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill 
     and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the 
     House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1)(A) The term ``unauthorized appropriation'' means an 
     appropriation--
       (i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty 
     stipulation (unless the appropriation has been specifically 
     authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an 
     estimate submitted in accordance with law); or
       (ii) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically 
     authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically 
     authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an 
     estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be 
     appropriated.

[[Page S2492]]

       (B) An appropriation is not specifically authorized if it 
     is restricted or directed to, or authorized to be obligated 
     or expended for the benefit of, an identifiable person, 
     program, project, entity, or jurisdiction by earmarking or 
     other specification, whether by name or description, in a 
     manner that is so restricted, directed, or authorized that it 
     applies only to a single identifiable person, program, 
     project, entity, or jurisdiction, unless the identifiable 
     person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction to which 
     the restriction, direction, or authorization applies is 
     described or otherwise clearly identified in a law or Treaty 
     stipulation (or an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or in the estimate submitted 
     in accordance with law) that specifically provides for the 
     restriction, direction, or authorization of appropriation for 
     such person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction.
       (2) The term ``new or general legislation'' has the meaning 
     given that term when it is used in paragraph 2 of Rule XVI of 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       (3) The term ``new matter'' means any matter not committed 
     to conferees by either House.
       (4) The term ``nongermane matter'' has the meaning given 
     that term when it is used in Rule XXII of the Standing Rules 
     of the Senate.


                           amendment no. 2983

  (Purpose: To permit a Senator to raise a single point of order that 
                several provisions violate Section 102)

  On page 3, line 12, strike ``shall be made and voted on separately 
for each item in violation of this section'' and insert ``may be made 
and voted on separately for each item in violation of this section.
  It shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order 
that several provisions of a conference report or an amendment between 
the Houses violate subparagraph (a). The Presiding Officer may sustain 
the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which 
the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so 
sustains the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against 
which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions 
against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall 
be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph. Before the Presiding 
Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive 
such a point of order, in accordance with subparagraph (g), as it 
applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of 
order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance 
with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding 
Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the 
ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies 
to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer 
ruled.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2961

(Purpose: To require lobbyist to distinguish whether clients are public 
                          or private entities)

       On page 24, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(8) for each client, immediately after listing the 
     client, an identification of whether the client is a public 
     entity, including a State or local government or a 
     department, agency, special purpose district, or other 
     instrumentality of a State or local government, or a private 
     entity.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3175

(Purpose: To require full disclosure of all entities and organizations 
                        receiving Federal funds)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FULL DISCLOSURE OF ENTITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL 
                   FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Effective beginning January 1, 2007, the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall ensure the existence 
     and operation of a single updated searchable database website 
     accessible by the public at no cost that includes for each 
     entity receiving Federal funding--
       (1) the name of the entity;
       (2) the amount of any Federal funds that the entity has 
     received in each of the last 10 fiscal years;
       (3) an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including 
     funding agency, program source, and a description of the 
     purpose of each funding action;
       (4) the location of the entity and primary location of 
     performance, including the city, State congressional 
     district, and country;
       (5) a unique identifier for each such entity and parent 
     entity, should the entity be owned by another entity; and
       (6) any other relevant information.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity.--The term ``entity''--
       (A) includes--
       (i) a corporation;
       (ii) an association;
       (iii) a partnership;
       (iv) a limited liability company;
       (v) a limited liability partnership;
       (vi) any other legal business entity;
       (vii) grantees, contractors, and, on and after October 1, 
     2007, subgrantees and subcontractors; and
       (viii) any State or locality; and
       (B) does not include--
       (i) an individual recipient of Federal assistance;
       (ii) a Federal employee; or
       (iii) a grant or contract of a nature that could be 
     reasonably expected to cause damage to national security.
       (2) Federal funding.--The term ``federal funding''--
       (A) means Federal financial assistance and expenditures 
     that include grants, contracts, subgrants, subcontracts, 
     loans, awards and other forms of financial assistance; and
       (B) does not include credit card transactions or minor 
     purchases.
       (3) Searchable database website.--The term ``searchable 
     database website'' means a website that allows the public 
     to--
       (A) search Federal funding by name of entity, parent 
     entity, or type of industry, geography, including location of 
     the entity and the primary location of the performance, 
     amounts and types of federal funding, program sources, type 
     of activity being performed, time factors such as fiscal 
     years or multiple fiscal years, and other relevant 
     information; and
       (B) download data included in subparagraph (A) including 
     outcomes from searches.
       (c) Website.--The database website established by this 
     section--
       (1) shall not be considered in compliance if it links to 
     FPDS, Grants.gov or other existing websites and databases, 
     unless each of those sites has information from all agencies 
     and each category of information required to be itemized can 
     be searched electronically by field in a single search;
       (2) shall provide an opportunity for the public to provide 
     input about the utility and of the site and recommendations 
     for improvements; and
       (3) shall be updated at least quarterly every fiscal year.
       (d) Agency Responsibilities.--The Director of OMB shall 
     provide guidance to agency heads to ensure compliance with 
     this section.
       (e) Report.--The Director of OMB shall annually report to 
     the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government 
     Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform on 
     implementation of the website that shall include data about 
     the usage and public feedback on the utility of the site, 
     including recommendations for improvements. The annual report 
     shall be made publicly available on the website.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2970

 (Purpose: To revise the time period for Internet availability in the 
provisions relating to earmarks and availability of conference reports 
                       from 24 hours to 48 hours)

       Beginning on page 4, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 6, line 7, and insert the following:

     SEC. 103. EARMARKS.

       The Standing Rules of the Senate are amended by adding at 
     the end the following:


                              ``RULE XLIV
                               ``EARMARKS

       ``1. In this rule--
       ``(1) the term `earmark' means a provision that specifies 
     the identity of a non-Federal entity to receive assistance 
     and the amount of the assistance; and
       ``(2) the term `assistance' means budget authority, 
     contract authority, loan authority, and other expenditures, 
     and tax expenditures or other revenue items.
       ``2. It shall not be in order to consider any Senate bill 
     or Senate amendment or conference report on any bill, 
     including an appropriations bill, a revenue bill, and an 
     authorizing bill, unless a list of--
       ``(1) all earmarks in such measure;
       ``(2) an identification of the Member or Members who 
     proposed the earmark; and
       ``(3) an explanation of the essential governmental purpose 
     for the earmark;
     is available along with any joint statement of managers 
     associated with the measure to all Members and made available 
     on the Internet to the general public for at least 48 hours 
     before its consideration.''.

     SEC. 104. AVAILABILITY OF CONFERENCE REPORTS ON THE INTERNET.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Amendment.--Rule XXVIII of all the Standing Rules of 
     the Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``7. It shall not be in order to consider a conference 
     report unless such report is available to all Members and 
     made available to the general public by means of the Internet 
     for at least 48 hours before its consideration.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2936

 (Purpose: To provide a 1-year prohibition against lobbying for senior 
               career staff of executive branch agencies)

       On page 40, after line 2, insert the following:
       (c) Senior Executive Personnel Generally.--Section 207(a) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) One-year restrictions on certain employees of the 
     executive branch and independent agencies.--Any person who is 
     an officer or employee in the Senior Executive Service, is 
     employed in a position subject to section 5108 of title 5, is 
     employed in a position subject to section 3104 of title 5, or 
     is employed in a position equivalent to a level

[[Page S2493]]

     14 position in the General Schedule (GS-14) (including any 
     special Government employee) of the executive branch of the 
     United States (including an independent agency) and who, 
     within 1 year after the termination of his or her service or 
     employment as such officer or employee, knowingly makes, with 
     the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance 
     before any officer or employee of the department or agency in 
     which such person served within 1 year before such 
     termination, on behalf of any other person (except the United 
     States), in connection with any matter on which such person 
     seeks official action by any officer or employee of such 
     department or agency, shall be punished as provided in 
     section 216 of this title.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2937

   (Purpose: To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to extend 
              coverage to all executive branch employees)

       On page 34, strike line 7 and insert the following:

     SEC. 221. COVERAGE OF ALL EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES.

       Section 3(3) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1602(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) any other employee of the executive branch.''.

     SEC. 222. EFFECTIVE DATE.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2982

    (Purpose: To provide criminal penalties for lobbying by exempt 
                             organizations)

       On page 25, after line 11, insert the following:
       Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1606) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``An 
     officer of an organization described in section 501(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who engages in lobbying 
     activities with Federal funds as prohibited by section 18 
     shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years and fined under 
     title 18 of the United States Code, or both.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are set 
aside.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to go forward with 
amendments postcloture. We did get an agreement last night to go to the 
Feingold amendment. I see the Senator from Wisconsin is on the Senate 
floor, so I yield to him to call it up at this time.


                           Amendment No. 2954

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield just to make a 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that an amendment by Senator Baucus of 
Montana, amendment No. 2954, be called up and that amendment be laid 
aside as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is called up and set aside.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 2954

 (Purpose: To prohibit Members from using 501(c)(3) organizations for 
                      personal or political gain)

       On page 16, strike line 1 and insert the following:

     SEC. 113. PROHIBITION ON USING CHARITIES FOR PERSONAL OR 
                   POLITICAL GAIN.

       (a) In General.--Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``13. (a) A Member of the Senate shall not use for personal 
     or political gain any organization--
       ``(1) which is described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code; and
       ``(2) the affairs over which such Member or the spouse of 
     such Member is in a position to exercise substantial 
     influence.
       ``(b) For purposes of this paragraph, a Member of the 
     Senate shall be considered to have used an organization 
     described in subparagraph (a) for personal or political gain 
     if--
       ``(1) a member of the family (within the meaning of section 
     4946(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of the Member 
     is employed by the organization;
       ``(2) any of the Member's staff is employed by the 
     organization,
       ``(3) an individual or firm that receives money from the 
     Member's campaign committee or a political committee 
     established, maintained, or controlled by the Member serves 
     in a paid capacity with or receives a payment from the 
     organization;
       ``(4) the organization pays for travel or lodging costs 
     incurred by the Member for a trip on which the Member also 
     engages in political fundraising activities; or
       ``(5) another organization that receives support from such 
     organization pays for travel or lodging costs incurred by the 
     Member.
       ``(c)(1) A Member of the Senate and any employee on the 
     staff of a Member to which paragraph 9(c) applies shall 
     disclose to the Secretary of the Senate the identity of any 
     person who makes an applicable contribution and the amount of 
     any such contribution.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subparagraph, an applicable 
     contribution is a contribution--
       ``(A) which is to an organization described in subparagraph 
     (a);
       ``(B) which is over $200; and
       ``(C) of which such Member or employee, as the case may be, 
     knows.
       ``(3) The Secretary of the Senate shall make available to 
     the public all disclosures filed pursuant to this 
     subparagraph as soon as possible after they are received.
       ``(d)(1) The Select Committee on Ethics may grant a waiver 
     to any Member with respect to the application of this 
     paragraph in the case of an organization which is described 
     in subparagraph (a)(1) and the affairs over which the spouse 
     of the Member, but not the Member, is in a position to 
     exercise substantial influence.
       ``(2) In granting a waiver under this subparagraph, the 
     Select Committee on Ethics shall consider all the facts and 
     circumstances relating to the relationship between the Member 
     and the organization, including--
       ``(A) the independence of the Member from the organization;
       ``(B) the degree to which the organization receives 
     contributions from multiple sources not affiliated with the 
     Member;
       ``(C) the risk of abuse; and
       ``(D) whether the organization was formed prior to and 
     separately from such spouse's involvement with the 
     organization.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2007.

     SEC. 114. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2962

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2962.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 2962

  (Purpose: To clarify the application of the gift rule to lobbyists)

       On page 8, after line 16, insert the following:
       ``(iii) For purposes of this subclause, the term 
     `registered lobbyist' means any person or entity required to 
     register pursuant to section 4(a) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act, and any employee of such registrant as defined in 
     section 3(5) of that Act.''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my friend from 
Connecticut and also the Senator from Pennsylvania for their amendment 
on meals that was offered before the recess, and also the Senator from 
Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for accepting it. If 
we are going to have a lobbyist gift ban, it clearly has to include 
meals. The provision in the underlying bill that allowed for Senators 
and staff to continue dining at the expense of lobbyists as long as 
those meals are disclosed on the Senator's Web site would have been an 
administrative nightmare and also created a subculture of lawbreaking 
just as, unfortunately, the $50 limit has done.
  The way we avoid that is just to ban meals from lobbyists, as we have 
banned gifts in the underlying bill.
  I am obviously not going to stand here and say that any Senator's 
vote can be purchased for a free meal or a ticket to a football game. 
But I do not think anyone can say that all lobbyists are buying these 
meals out of the goodness of their heart. At this point, no reform bill 
is going to be credible that does not contain a strict lobbyist gift 
ban. And no one has ever explained to me why Members of Congress need 
to be allowed to accept free meals, tickets, or any other gift from a 
lobbyist. If you really want to have dinner with a lobbyist, no one is 
saying that you cannot. Just take out your wallet and pay your own way. 
I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that you will survive 
just fine under a no-gifts policy. The Wisconsin Legislature has had 
such a policy for some 30 years and I brought it here with me to 
Washington. And I certainly have not gone hungry.
  We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of 
others. It is not necessary. It looks bad. It leads to abuses. So I 
support the Dodd-

[[Page S2494]]

Santorum amendment on meals and I am glad that it was adopted.
  Here is the problem that I seek to address in my amendment. We have 
just said that we want to ban all gifts from lobbyists--tickets, meals, 
presents, everything. But it is a little known fact that the Ethics 
Committee already has in place an interpretation of the term 
``registered lobbyist'' that narrows it somewhat. That interpretation 
might make some sense for the prohibitions on lobbyists that are 
currently in our rules. But that same interpretation, if it is applied 
to this gifts and meals ban, will create a huge loophole.
  Here is how it works. As my colleagues know, the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act requires organizations, trade associations, and companies that 
employ in-house lobbyists to file a single registration. The registrant 
is the organization, and it lists its individual lobbyists on its 
registration form. For purposes of the gift rules now, the Ethics 
Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, 
but not the organization. If you do not believe me, look on page 43 of 
the Ethics Manual. Here is the language:

       For purposes of applying the special restrictions on 
     lobbyists in the Gifts Rule, an organization employing 
     lobbyists (outside or in-house) to represent solely the 
     interests of the organization or its members will not be 
     considered to be a ``lobbyist.''

  If that interpretation is applied to the gift and meals ban, that 
means that the organization can continue to offer gifts and meals to 
Senators and staff.
  So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show 
or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or 
handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call or the 
organization's CEO president, that would be permitted, or a lobbyist 
can invite a Senator or staffer to dinner, as long as he brings along 
someone else from the organization to pick up the tab with the company 
credit card.
  Let me read some of the companies and organizations that have 
registered under the LDA because they have in-house lobbyists. All of 
the organizations I am about to list, and hundreds more, will be able 
to continue to give gifts unless my amendment is adopted: Chamber of 
Commerce for the U.S.A.; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; 
General Electric Co.; American Medical Association; Northrop Grumman 
Corp.; Edison Electric Institute; AFL-CIO; Verizon Communications Inc.; 
Business Roundtable; Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of 
America; National Association of Realtors; ExxonMobil Corp.; SBC 
Communications Inc.; Boeing Co.; Lockheed Martin; AT&T Corp.; General 
Motors Corp.; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); Sprint 
Corp.; Microsoft Corp; American Council of Life Insurance; Pfizer Inc.; 
National Association of Broadcasters; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase & 
Co.; Securities Industry Association; American Bankers Association; The 
Seniors Coalition; Ford Motor Co.; Merck & Co.; American Bankers 
Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; IBM Corp.; National Cable 
and Telecommunications; Association and state affiliates; Eli Lilly and 
Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco; American International Group Inc.; 
General Dynamics Corp.; Motorola Inc.; Southern Co.; BellSouth Corp.; 
ChevronTexaco; Investment Company Institute; Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Textron 
Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; United States Telecom Association; 
Intel Corp.; National Association of Manufacturers; Health Insurance 
Association of America; Time Warner; Marathon Oil Corp.; American 
Association of Health Plans; Abbott Laboratories; Union Pacific Corp.; 
American Chemistry Council; BP Amoco; Shell Oil Co.; United 
Technologies Corp.; Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; Honeywell, 
Inc.; Qwest Communications International Inc.; Property Casualty 
Insurers Association of America; Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association; Wyeth; Walt Disney Co.; Biotechnology Industry 
Organization; Prudential Financial Cos.; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; 
Monsanto Co.; CTIA--The Wireless AssociationTM (formerly the 
Cellular Telecom Industry Association); The Bond Market Association; 
Asbestos Study Group; Johnson & Johnson, Inc.; Schering-Plough Corp.; 
Procter & Gamble Co.; American Forest & Paper Association; National 
Federation of Independent Business; American Institute of CPAs; 
Raytheon Co.; Visa USA Inc.; American Airlines; and International Paper 
Co.
  These are all companies that have registered under the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act because they have inhouse lobbyists. So let me repeat. 
All of the organizations I just listed, and hundreds more, will be able 
to continue to give gifts, tickets, and meals unless my amendment is 
adopted. By the way, each of the organizations I just listed has 
reported spending between $15 and $200 million on lobbying activities 
between 1998 and 2004. So let me make this very clear. If these 
companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. 
We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, ``we 
just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

  We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of 
others. But we need to make sure it's a real ban. My amendment will do 
that. It simply says that for purposes of the gift ban only, the term 
``registered lobbyist'' means any person or entity who is registered 
under the LDA and any employee of that entity. Very simple, and very 
fair.
  Now let me point out one other thing before people get all worried. 
All of the exceptions in the current gift rule continue to apply to the 
meals and gift ban. That means it does not impact our colleagues, 
relatives, personal friendship, widely attended events, food and drink 
of nominal value, etc. So that means that employees of these 
organizations can still have their friends who work on the Hill over 
for dinner, they can still go out on dates, they can still exchange 
Christmas gifts, they can still get a housewarming gift from a 
neighbor. Organizations can still host receptions and Members and staff 
can attend and have a bit to eat. My amendment simply makes sure that 
organizations that are registered under the LDA can't get around the 
gift ban by having people other than their lobbyists offer tickets or 
meals or other gifts.
  I say this with great respect for the Senators who have worked so 
hard in putting this bill together.
  If we are serious about changing the rule on gifts and meals, we have 
to take the interpretation seriously. My amendment makes it clear that 
we mean what we say. The era of the free lunch will be over. For real. 
As it should be. If it is not adopted, there is no conclusion to be 
drawn but that we are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the 
American people. I don't want that to be the story coming out of this 
debate. I hope the managers will accept this amendment and, if not, I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have 
worked in this area to make sure that we did some things that were 
necessary and realistic. I think we should make it clear about gifts. 
We do that in this legislation. We can't accept gifts.
  I am offended at the very idea that some meal is going to cause me to 
vote one way or the other. But it suits me fine. As I have said on this 
floor, I would be happy not to ever have to go to another luncheon or 
dinner. I would just as soon go home and order a Big Mac. But I think 
this goes a step further which is problematic in a way that I don't 
believe the American people expect us to do or that we would want to 
do.
  Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, individuals who lobby on 
behalf of other entities must register as a lobbyist. In addition, 
organizations such as corporations, trade associations, or a labor 
union that employs in-house lobbyists or outside lobbying firms are 
required to register under the act.
  However, for purposes of applying the restrictions that are imposed 
on lobbyists under our gift rule, an organization that employs 
lobbyists to represent organizations or its members' interests is not 
considered to be a lobbyist.
  Thus, for example, the AFL-CIO employs lobbyists. But for purposes of 
the Senate gift rule, the AFL-CIO can sponsor a congressional 
factfinding trip whereas if the AFL-CIO employed an outside lobbying 
firm, the lobbying firm cannot sponsor such a trip.
  Under the proposed amendment, for the purposes of our new rule 
banning

[[Page S2495]]

gifts and meals, the employees of the AFL-CIO would all be considered 
to be registered lobbyists. Janitors at the AFL-CIO would all be 
considered registered lobbyists. The janitors at the AFL-CIO 
headquarters, the secretaries in the organization, all would be deemed 
to be registered lobbyists.
  I am the son of a shipyard worker pipefitter union member. How far 
would this extend? Would you not be able to go to a meal with a 
supervisor of a pipe department because they have a lobbyist, not to 
mention the CEO?
  So this is not just about corporate America. It is also about union 
member trade associations and other organizations. We are trying to 
deal with how we relate to lobbyists, but now we are going to extend it 
way beyond. You will not be able to go to a meal with the chairman of 
the board of a sardine manufacturing plant. And why not, when you are 
in your State and you have an opportunity to go meet with workers and 
sit down with them? Are we going to be able to have a cup of coffee and 
a donut?
  I think we are beginning to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. It 
could go on and on.
  I am a big fan of Domino's pizza and McDonald's and Big Macs. I love 
them. They are bad for you, but they are wonderful.
  What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be 
considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? I 
assume they do. I don't think I have ever met one.
  By the way, in the case of McDonald's, there are franchises. They own 
all the McDonald's in the Mississippi Delta, or they might own 10 or 
12. Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend in the 
Mississippi Delta who owns those 12 McDonald's in the delta? Not only 
would I miss an opportunity to be with a friend, I would not have an 
opportunity to understand the challenges and difficulties of running a 
small business, or running a restaurant in these towns, problems with 
crime, workers' problems, workers' needs, the lack of insurance for 
entry-level employees.
  How are we supposed to know all of this stuff? Like manna from 
heaven? We have to stay in touch with reality in order to serve here. 
We have turned ourselves into not citizen legislators but professional 
Senators in this room divorced of any opportunity to hear what people 
have to say. It is OK to talk to them so long as we don't have anything 
to eat. I think we are going a step too far.
  Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a 
private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every 
person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot--not exactly dangerous 
places--and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in 
Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
  I honestly cannot believe that we want to pass an amendment that 
wants to turn every employee not only in corporate America but in 
management and labor and other associations into registered lobbyists. 
But I think that is what the effect of this would be.
  If the Senator wants to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the 
company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that 
specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way 
beyond that.
  I think we would be well advised not to accept this amendment. I 
reluctantly went along with accepting the amendment earlier about 
dealing with lobbyists, but that is OK. I am willing to do things that 
would prohibit improper conduct, or even the appearance of it, but I 
think this is a leap way too far.
  I hope we would not accept this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of 
the Senator from Mississippi. This reminds me of the experience in 1994 
when there was stiff resistance to the idea of having a gift ban in the 
Senate. We achieved a significant victory by having at least a $50 
limit which has been, unfortunately, abused to this day.
  I would like, at this time, to get this done in a way that does not 
cause us to have to come back. The point I make to my friend from 
Mississippi is that this is a real loophole. I am not trying to find 
some esoterical problem. It is a real loophole if employees of large 
companies, where the companies are registered as lobbyists, if they are 
able to buy meals. It undercuts the whole idea that we are prohibiting 
meals by lobbyists and their employees.
  I make two responses. First, this does not apply to companies that 
are not registered as lobbyists. For example, if the Senator from 
Mississippi were to have lunch with, say, a banker in Jackson, MS, 
whose company bank does not have a lobbyist, this does not affect that 
situation. Let's not exaggerate how far it goes.
  What is more important, I don't understand the premise. The Senator 
said he would not be able to have lunch or have dinner with a CEO. Why 
not? All you have to do is split the bill. It is that simple. Maybe it 
is a different cultural tradition, but in Wisconsin if you go to lunch 
with someone, or dinner, more times than not, you split the bill. It 
seems to me that Senators know how to do that. It is not about the 
person trying to buy you a meal. It is just a good thing for us to do.
  Whether this is practical or impractical, I say this again, we have 
had this rule in Wisconsin for over 30 years for our State legislature. 
It has worked just fine. Sometimes we kid around about it, the cup of 
coffee situation, but it is a good, clean rule. And people understand, 
when you are a legislator in Wisconsin, you pay your own way. That is 
all there is to it. It is that simple.
  I don't want to prohibit the Senator from Mississippi or anyone else 
from socializing with whomever he wants, and I certainly enjoy sharing 
dinner with friends. Sometimes, they are lobbyists. There is no 
problem, though, with paying your own way.
  If we don't do this, if we do not adopt this amendment, we are stuck 
with a big loophole. I think the fears about this being difficult to 
administer are exaggerated.
  I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 13\1/2\ 
minutes; the Senator from Wisconsin has 9 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I be informed when I have consumed 10 
minutes. I see my friend from Maine is here. She would like 2 or 3 
minutes, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Wisconsin, he and I 
have worked together on a lot of issues. I consider him one of my best 
friends in this institution. I appreciate his kind remarks about the 
adoption of the Dodd-Santorum amendment, about 3 weeks ago now, when 
our joint amendment provided a total ban on meals coming from 
lobbyists.
  I never could keep straight exactly what the numbers were, for 
example, how much you could take at lunch and how much you could take 
at dinner. We decided we would require some bright line tests. Rather 
than going through and setting a dollar amount--people probably forget 
the number anyway and put themselves in jeopardy of being found guilty 
of something, unintentionally--we offered and passed a total ban on 
meals, without exceptions.
  So meals from lobbyists are now banned when this legislation becomes 
law. If you violate the ban provision, the fine is a maximum of 
$100,000 under the legislation we are adopting.
  The concern I have about my colleague from Wisconsin and his 
amendment is that it is broader and includes a much larger audience. 
This bill is about lobbyists. You become a lobbyist through 
registration under the Lobby Disclosure Act. It is not a self-selecting 
process where I decide tomorrow I'm a lobbyist. In fact, you have to 
register and go through a process to become a lobbyist.
  We have been very concerned for obvious reasons, given the recent 
past history, of what happens when lobbyists engage in certain 
activities, some lawful and some unlawful, and the perception of 
whether Members of this institution have somehow compromised themselves 
in those dealings. We have been determined to try and draw that bright 
line. My concern is that we begin to blur that line because now we are 
going to be declaring de facto--not

[[Page S2496]]

by law, not because they have registered--that virtually hundreds of 
thousands of people have become lobbyists. They will have no idea they 
have become one, but they have become one under this amendment, 
subjecting themselves, potentially, to a $100,000 fine for purchasing a 
meal for a Member of Congress. As a practical matter, that is what will 
happen here.
  If your organization hires a lobbyist, and most do--I presume even 
the bank in Mississippi has a lobbyist; today, almost every major 
institution, financial or otherwise, has someone who is representing 
their interests--the lobbyists have to register if they come to the 
Senate and talk to us. Therefore, they become not only de facto, but de 
jure lobbyist because they have had to register to do so. If you are an 
employee of that bank, however, and you live next door to someone, you 
are a longstanding friend, and my colleague from Wisconsin is correct 
in this regard, if a longstanding friend of my friend from Mississippi 
took him to lunch, that would be an exception to the rule. However, 
that longstanding friendship is subject, obviously, to some analysis as 
to how long the friendship is. That could pose this difficulty.
  I don't think we want to extend this, in my view, and my colleagues 
may decide when we vote on this and reach a different conclusion, to 
dealing with this legislation on lobbyists and their relationship to 
Members of Congress, by expanding the universal definition of what is a 
lobbyist, to virtually every other employee of an organization that 
hires a lobbyist to represent their interest. This type of expansion 
goes too far and is overly broad.
  Let me tell you one fact situation that worries me. I had hoped maybe 
my colleague might provide for some legislative language to close a 
potential loophole that I think could exist under the present 
circumstance. That fact situation is the following. The lobbyist 
invites the secretary to go out to have lunch with a Member of 
Congress. The secretary picks up the tab. The lobbyist is there. The 
lobbyist may have provided money to the secretary to provide lunch. 
Now, that would be an abuse of what Congress intended here because it 
then would be doing indirectly what cannot be done directly, in a 
sense, bringing someone who is not a lobbyist to lunch. The lobbyist is 
at the lunch, they buy the meal, but at least ostensibly the person who 
actually bought the lunch was not the lobbyist.
  If there was some situation we could close that loophole, that would 
be abuse of what we are trying to do. But to extend broadly that every 
employee of every organization that hires a lobbyist would then become 
a lobbyist, in effect, for the consideration of this legislation, seems 
to me to go way beyond what we are intending to accomplish in this 
legislation.
  Again, I made the case to my colleagues, reform is not a static 
event. It is an organic event. It grows over time. What we consider to 
be reform today or not reform today, may down the road be the case. I 
have been involved in every virtual effort on reform here for the last 
25 years. Twenty-five years ago what was considered appropriate 
behavior, that no one had difficulty with, today we would consider very 
inappropriate behavior. And 5 years or 10 years down the road, maybe we 
will have different standards.
  As of today, I urge my colleagues, as of today, on this bill, dealing 
with registered lobbyists, we have banned meals. That is a major step 
for this institution to take. Cut it out altogether. If you are a 
registered lobbyist, that is it, no more meals.
  Let me also say, there is nothing in this legislation which permits 
any Member of Congress from doing that which they want to do. If a 
Member of Congress, a Member of this institution does not want to 
accept a meal from anyone, there is nothing in law which prohibits a 
Member from doing that. If a Member feels as though somehow it is wrong 
to be doing it, I strongly suggest that Member not do it. But it seems 
to me to extend this lobbying bill to people who have no intention of 
ever being a lobbyist, never see themselves in that regard, have 
relationships, as my colleague from Mississippi has pointed out in our 
own States, with delegations, with staff, with others, these have 
occurred hundreds and hundreds of times when Members are back in their 
own areas--not longstanding friends, not relatives, people they do not 
know that well at all but sit down under a variety of different 
circumstances, including home settings, picnics, barbecues, other 
things, where you may find yourself in violation of this law.
  I don't think we want to do that. That goes a step further than what 
we should be trying to accomplish with this legislation. I don't want 
to have to say to my constituents, you are potentially guilty of a 
violation of law, subjected to $100,000 fine if you fall into this 
category, or to one of our colleagues as well.
  We have done a good job, in my view, on this meals provision. It is a 
strong line. It is a bright line. There is no longer any question of 
whether it is a $10 meal or a $50 meal or a $100 meal; you cannot 
accept a meal from a lobbyist. That is it. If you do, you are 
potentially in violation of Federal law, or certainly civil penalties. 
That is where the bright line, in my view, ought to exist.
  I have great respect for my colleague from Wisconsin. He has been a 
champion of reform efforts since the day he arrived. I respect him for 
it immensely. But in this one, we are taking it a step further than I 
believe we should go at this juncture.
  I urge my colleagues to either table this amendment or reject it, 
depending on what the motion will be when the matter comes for a vote.
  My respect for him is unlimited. I thank him for his thoughts in this 
regard but I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I express my gratitude not only for the 
Senator's kind remarks to the Senator from Connecticut but I am pretty 
sure the McCain-Feingold effort that we fought for, for 8 years, would 
not have succeeded if not for the brilliant leadership of the Senator 
as manager on the floor, for which I am always grateful and also for 
his friendship.
  I pursue the example that the Senator raised in a constructive way. 
In the scenario the Senator raised where the secretary would come with 
lobbyists, what is the Senator's thought about how she would be paying 
for that? Would she be paying for that with the company credit card, 
for example?
  Mr. DODD. Again----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Or with a personal?
  Mr. DODD. Under his amendment, that would be a banned activity.
  Putting aside whether she showed up with a lobbyist--if she shows up, 
and you go out and have lunch, and she pays for it with the company 
credit card--under the amendment before the Senate, that would be a 
violation. She could be fined $100,000.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. And does the Senator agree, under your current 
amendment, that the secretary would be able to use the company credit 
card to pay for it under the amendment we have agreed to?
  Mr. DODD. That is correct. If she is not a lobbyist and she takes you 
to lunch and she decides that is how she is paying for it, she is not a 
registered lobbyist, she is not in violation of the law in the 
amendment we agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. On this point--obviously, it may not be a secretary or 
a CEO of a company; it could be some other employee--would the Senator 
at least consider whether we should take the step of prohibiting the 
use of company resources or company credit cards? In other words, I 
think it should be broader. You have raised some concerns about that. 
What about allowing personal resources to be used but not company 
resources?

  Mr. DODD. I would certainly consider it.
  The point I make, about the goal of this bill--the Senator and I have 
talked about this at great length--is the bill should be narrowly 
tailored to registered lobbyists and their relationships to Members of 
Congress and senior staff.
  My concern under this bill, is that by expanding that definition of a 
``lobbyist'' to include anyone who would use resources that were not 
their own, we are opening up a universe and making the legislation 
overly broad. I don't

[[Page S2497]]

think we want to go that far at this particular juncture. That is my 
own sense of matters.
  It turns virtually everyone who works for any of these associations, 
labor unions, trade association, a small business, a large corporation, 
into a de-facto lobbyist. I think the opening up of a universe of that 
size based on whether the lunch was paid for by a company credit card 
or their personal credit card at that particular time, goes too far.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I think the Senator sees where I am going with this. I 
think the Ethics Committee and others will have to be very reasonable 
interpreters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has used 10 
minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will have him respond on my time.
  The situation is that you are raising situations with personal 
friends, and in those situations I don't disagree, I don't think there 
would be a problem. I think the exception would be properly 
interpreted.
  I am asking the Senator to at least perhaps consider whether we 
really want the kind of scenario that the Senator posits, where a 
company basically lines up people to come in and act as the person that 
uses the company credit card. It seems to me we have an opportunity to 
fix something here, not go as far as I want to go but at least prevent 
the use of company resources and at the same time avoid the possibility 
of the true personal friendship situation from being affected.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I cited that example, and I 
hope I did not invite those out there who may decide to use this as a 
loophole.
  If this becomes a problem, we ought to revisit the issue and somehow 
prohibit it because that is abusing the intent of the legislation.
  It seems to me to pass legislation which would turn virtually 
millions of people--when you start talking about the number of people 
who can be affected by this--into lobbyists, per se, on the abject 
possibility that someone may abuse this down the road goes to far.
  It goes further than I would at this juncture. In time, if we see 
those who have engaged in this abuse have carved another loophole, I am 
prepared to come back and deal with that fact situation.
  It is a fact situation that worries me. I say that to my colleagues. 
I am not unconcerned about it, but I am not so concerned about it at 
this juncture that I am willing to put everyone else--the millions of 
others who would not think about that, nor would they do that--in 
harm's way. That is my concern, putting innocent people, potentially, 
in harm's way. I do not think our intentions here, as Members, ought to 
be that.
  We are dealing with lobbyists. We are dealing with registered 
lobbyists. They have to go through certain procedures to achieve that 
status. Once they have achieved that status, there is a concern. We are 
trying to deal with that problem. Taking people who go way beyond that 
definition, it seems to me, is a step that at least I do not want to go 
that far.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, obviously, not only do I respect what 
the Senator from Connecticut is doing, but I know his intentions are 
absolutely to have the strongest possible bill we can have.
  What I am trying to do, as strongly as I feel about this issue--
because, again, Wisconsin has had this system, and it has worked just 
fine. So based on my own personal experience, this is not some kind of 
a crazy system. Nonetheless, what I am trying to get at is a way that 
we could have a rule, that even if somebody is technically considered a 
lobbyist--or we could do it some other way--they just could not use 
company resources to purchase the meal. That seems to me to be a very 
reasonable step.
  When somebody goes out to lunch or dinner with somebody, it is one 
thing if they buy a friend or even someone they just met a meal, it is 
another thing when they are using that company credit card. So 
obviously I am interested in the amendment I have offered, but I would 
ask the Senator to think about whether what I am saying is an attempt 
to come to some kind of a reasonable agreement that actually addresses 
the hypothetical that he has raised.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Three minutes.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time, except for the 
final 15 seconds, to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my admiration for the 
Senator from Wisconsin. He is a champion of good government. I worked 
very closely with him on the McCain-Feingold bill, and I think the 
world of him.
  I know the intent of his amendment is admirable, but I do not think 
it is workable. It is far too sweeping, and it will lead to all sorts 
of problems. There are literally millions of Americans who work for LDA 
registrants. For example, I would imagine that nearly every employee of 
a Fortune 500 company fits in that category. Many of those employees 
have absolutely no responsibility for the lobbying activities of their 
companies. They probably have no idea their company, their employer, is 
an LDA registrant.
  That is why I do not think this is workable. I think it will create 
all sorts of inadvertent violations of this important law. What we 
would be doing, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, is 
treating rank-and-file employees as if they were registered lobbyists. 
That does not make sense.
  The fact is, a lot of business in this country is done over lunch, an 
informal lunch. I have lunch occasionally with the union presidents 
from one of my shipyards. Is that all of a sudden going to become an 
offense under this proposal because the shipyard employs a lobbyist in 
Washington?
  I think we need to think more thoroughly about the implications of 
this amendment. Its sweep is enormous. It brings millions of rank-and-
file employees into the jurisdiction of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. I 
do not think that is addressing any problem.
  Now, I do think it is important we strengthen this bill to make very 
clear that registered lobbyists cannot buy meals for Members of 
Congress. I support that reform. But let's have a sensible bill.
  I do rise in opposition to the amendment from my good friend from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have had a good debate. I know 
the intent of the amendment's sponsor is an honest one, but I really 
think we are going down a trail we should not be. And I do not see how 
you can start parsing it back away from it. So I would move to table 
the amendment at this point and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin still has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. All right. At the appropriate time I will move to table and 
will ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I do not know if I will use the whole time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have such regard for the Senator from 
Maine that I would consider an exception for any lobster in Maine 
because she and I have shared lobster in Maine, and that is a very 
special thing I think everyone would accept.
  My admiration for this Senator from Maine on these issues is truly 
boundless. She is the one who, somehow, we convinced to join us very 
early on McCain-Feingold. And just like I said about Senator Dodd, if 
not for Senator Collins, there is no way this major reform would have 
ever passed. So I am talking to some of the people who truly

[[Page S2498]]

have been reformers in Congress over the years, some of them much 
longer than I have been. And I say all of this with respect.
  Let me say this. We know, because some of us have been working on 
this for some time, that these opportunities for reform do not come up 
every year. They tend to come up when something bad happens, whether it 
be the concerns about the 1996 campaign finance violations or the 
Abramoff scandal. It is not like we are going to have a chance to do 
this next year because that is not the way this place works. And, 
frankly, there are weightier matters that face this country.
  But I am warning my colleagues, this is a chance to not have another 
embarrassing loophole. If we do not do what I am suggesting here, we 
are going to be embarrassed. There are going to be meals arranged--not 
the kind of scenario Senator Dodd suggested: an innocent situation but 
a gaming of this meal ban to allow expensive meals to be bought by 
people who work for some of the companies I have listed.
  I do not think people are going to feel good about that. I think it 
could raise some of the very things we talked about in terms of the 
whole Abramoff scandal that led to this. I think we are missing an 
important opportunity to make sure this bill passes the test with the 
American people. So again, with respect, I offer this amendment to make 
sure this amendment works.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I have been listening to the debate in my office, and I understand 
the concern the leadership is expressing. It seems to me it boils down 
to an inadvertent concern. But, folks, I think the Senator from 
Wisconsin has a point. I have had it as my practice since I have been 
in the Senate--and I don't think it is so hard--that when you sit down 
and have a meal, to just split the bill or you pay for it. I don't get 
that.
  Now, I am going to vote with the Senator. I expect he is going to 
lose on a tabling motion. But maybe there is a way he can come back and 
tighten up this inadvertent piece. Because I do understand. I have been 
in a position where I have sat with someone, told them I cannot let 
them buy my lunch. They go ahead--and it is a friend or somebody who I 
have known for a while--and I found out later they paid with a company 
credit card. They told me they were.
  Now, I know that is an exception. I know because the person is a 
friend, it would get me out anyway of the exception under this rule. 
But the point I am making is, I can picture someone saying ``Don't 
worry. I am taking care of my share,'' and it is a company credit card. 
If that is the worry, there ought to be a way to deal with that.
  But I say, with due respect--there is nobody I am closer to and think 
has more wisdom than the Senator from Connecticut--but this one seems 
pretty simple to me. If someone buys you lunch, buys you dinner, buys 
you breakfast, you can say: Hey, I want half the bill.
  I am going to support the Senator. But maybe if it loses, there is a 
way to come back at it a different way. I don't know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from 
Delaware for his support and his ideas on this issue because he 
obviously knows what he is talking about, having been a Member of this 
body for a very long time.
  I think, obviously, I will try to find some other way to do this. But 
he has stated the key point. This is not hard to do. This is what we 
have done in Wisconsin for decades. It is very simple to pay your own 
way. I do not know what it is, but I cannot understand what the problem 
is with having that kind of a clear prohibition. I think we will all be 
better off.
  Mr. President, has the other side yielded their time? Has their time 
expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield my time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has all time been yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is 
absent due to death in family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no 
more than 4 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hagel are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent to go off the ethics bill for 5 
minutes to speak in morning business to introduce a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer pertaining to the introduction of S. 2468 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, 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. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and this is after 
extensive consultation during the noon lunch period by both sides, both 
committees, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. We would like to 
get this matter cleared up, and then I will be able to explain where we 
are and how

[[Page S2499]]

we can wrap up this important issue, hopefully within the hour.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to raise one 
point of order against a series of amendments that violate rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XXII 
against amendments Nos. 2936, 2937, 2954, 2965, 2982, 3175, and 2995.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the point of order is well 
taken. The amendments fall.


  Amendments Nos. 2930, 2960, 2961, as Modified, 2963, 2970, 3181, as 
    Modified, 3182, 2979, 3184, 3185, 3186, 3187, and 3188, En Bloc

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be agreed to en bloc, with modifications as indicated: 
amendments Nos. 2930, 2960, 2961, as modified; 2963, 2970, 3181, as 
modified; and 3182.
  I further ask unanimous consent that a series of technical amendments 
that have been cleared on both sides and that are at the desk also be 
considered en bloc, agreed to, with motions to reconsider on each laid 
upon the table.
  I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order other 
than the pending amendments Nos. 2980, 2981, and 2983.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following disposition of those 
amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a 
vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, we 
went through these numbers and procedures rather quickly. I would tell 
our colleagues that there were some very good ideas in these 
amendments. This is not a rejection of some of the concepts and ideas 
but, rather, under cloture we have to stick with the germaneness 
criteria.
  If we started making exceptions, then this could have become an 
endless debate. It was painful in some cases because I substantively 
agreed with a number of these amendments. But the problem occurs, if we 
get into that process, we could be here for days trying to resolve 
these matters. We ended up following the rule saying if an amendment is 
not germane, it will have to fall.
  Again I emphasize, this is not an indictment or criticism of the 
substance of some of these amendments but, rather, under the procedures 
we are operating, we cannot begin accepting some and rejecting others.
  I thank my colleagues for offering these amendments. I presume we 
will see these amendments again under different circumstances where it 
will be appropriate to consider them. We have no other recourse but to 
apply rule XXII and ask the amendment be ruled out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2930, 2960, 2963, 2970, and 3182) were agreed.
  The amendments, as modified, were agreed to as follows:


                    amendment no. 2961, as modified

       On page 24, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(8) for each client, immediately after listing the 
     client, an identification of whether the client is a public 
     entity, including a State or local government or a 
     department, agency, special purpose district, or other 
     instrumentality controlled by a State or local government, or 
     a private entity.''.


                    amendment no. 3181, as modified

       On page 50, strike lines 8 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Final report.--Five years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress a final 
     report containing information described in subsection (a).

  The technical amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2979

             (Purpose: To clarify disclosure requirements)

       On page 22, lines 12 through 14, strike ``the registrant or 
     employee listed as a lobbyist provided, or directed or 
     arranged to be provided,'' and insert ``the registrant 
     provided, or directed or arranged to be provided, or the 
     employee listed as a lobbyist directed or arranged to be 
     provided,''.


                           amendment no. 3184

                (Purpose: To make a technical amendment)

       On page 6, lines 13 and 14, strike ``Enrolling Clerks of 
     the Senate and'' and insert ``Clerk of the''.
       On page 6, line 16, strike ``and establish''.


                           amendment no. 3185

(Purpose: To clarify that lobbying contacts for Congressional staff do 
not include seeking lobbying disclosure compliance information from the 
 Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate)

       On page 39, line 17, after ``employed.'' insert ``This 
     subparagraph shall not apply to contacts with staff of the 
     Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives regarding compliance with lobbying disclosure 
     requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.''


                           amendment no. 3186

              (Purpose: To provide a technical amendment)

       On page 44, line 18, strike ``503'' and insert ``263''.


                           amendment no. 3187

              (Purpose: To provide a technical amendment)

       On page 40, after line 2, insert the following:
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.


                           amendment no. 3188

              (Purpose: To provide a technical amendment)

       On page 27, lines 21 through 23, strike ``, in addition to 
     any'' and all that follows through ``House of 
     Representatives.'' and insert ``. The Secretary of the Senate 
     and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall use the 
     same electronic software for receipt and recording of filings 
     under this Act.''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I opposed the Ensign amendment on earmarks 
because I believe that it would have done more to hide earmarks than to 
expose them. Under the bill before the Senate, an earmark is defined as 
a provision, that specifies a non-Federal entity to receive assistance 
and the amount of that assistance. The Ensign amendment would have 
revised the language to include assistance provided to any entity, 
whether Federal or non-Federal. Every item of discretionary spending is 
directed to some entity. Most is directed to Federal entities, such as 
funding provided to the Department of Justice, the Department of State, 
or the Department of Defense, all of which are Federal entities. As I 
read the Ensign amendment, it would have categorized every item of 
Federal discretionary spending as an earmark. That would make the term 
meaningless. It would also hide the real earmarks in a huge list of 
routine funding provisions that none of us consider to be earmarks. The 
amendment is simply too broadly drawn, and that is why I opposed it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I filed an amendment to the lobbying reform 
bill, S. 2349, on March 7. My amendment is the honest services 
amendment, No. 2924.
  It is disappointing that there will not be an opportunity to offer my 
amendment--or to have it considered by the Senate--because cloture has 
been invoked and the strict rules governing amendments postcloture 
prevent me from offering this amendment.
  The purpose of my amendment is to articulate more clearly the line 
that cannot be crossed with respect to links between special favors and 
gifts and official acts, without incurring criminal liability. My 
amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension to 
the lobbying reform bill. Ironically, because my amendment offers a new 
element to the lobbying reform debate, it is now out of order.
  It was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, 
and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the serious 
ethics scandal that has grown over the last years. If we are serious 
about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do more than 
just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules. Congress 
must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of public 
corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat 
it.
  My amendment would have done exactly that. It would create a better 
legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists 
under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of honest services 
fraud involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or 
depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected 
representatives.
  Under my amendment, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence 
legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, 
lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to 
Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for 
their actions.

[[Page S2500]]

  My amendment would also prohibit Members of Congress and their staff 
from accepting these types of gifts and favors or holding hidden 
financial interests in return for being influenced in carrying out 
their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up 
to 20 years' imprisonment or both.
  My amendment would strengthen the tools available to Federal 
prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. The 
amendment makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public 
corruption cases without all of the hurdles of having to prove bribery 
or of working with the limited and nonspecific honest services fraud 
language in current Federal law.
  The amendment also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other 
individuals with much needed notice and clarification as to what kind 
of conduct triggers this criminal offense.
  In addition, my amendment would authorize $25 million in additional 
Federal funds over each of the next 4 years to give Federal prosecutors 
needed resources to investigate corruption and to hold lobbyists and 
other individuals accountable for improperly seeking to influence 
legislation and other official matters.
  The unfolding corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack 
Abramoff and MZM demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials 
has broad-ranging impact, including the devastating consequence of 
undermining the public's confidence in our Government. Earlier this 
month, the Washington Post reported that, as an outgrowth of the 
Cunningham investigation, Federal investigators are now looking into 
contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency--the 
Counterintelligence Field Activity--to MZM, Inc., a company run by 
Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe 
Mr. Cunningham.
  The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their 
representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a 
manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.
  I strongly believe that public service is a public trust and that 
Congress must provide better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat 
public corruption in our Government. If we are serious about reform and 
cleaning up this scandal, we will do so. I am disappointed that we 
missed the opportunity this lobbying reform bill provided to bolster 
Federal corruption prosecutors, and I hope we will soon find another 
opportunity to act in the interest of all Americans.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the hard work 
of my colleagues in this effort. The chair and ranking member of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senators Collins and Lieberman, and the 
chair and ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senators Lott and 
Dodd, have worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan manner to bring a bill 
to the floor. I regret, however, that I find it necessary to vote 
against final passage of this measure because it simply doesn't do 
enough to address the critical need for comprehensive lobbying reform. 
We had a golden opportunity to institute real reform and prove to the 
American people that we are not completely oblivious to their concerns. 
Unfortunately, Mr. President, we dropped the ball.
  While it does contain some good provisions to increase lobbyist 
disclosure and reporting requirements, the bill lacks imperative 
enforcement measures. We can pass all of the rules changes we want in 
this body, but they are useless unless we back it up with a tough 
enforcement mechanism. I was disappointed that the Collins-Lieberman-
McCain amendment to create a Senate Office of Public Integrity was 
defeated yesterday. That office would have had the ability to 
investigate complaints of ethical violations by Senators, staff, 
officers of this Chamber. Headed by a Director appointed by the 
President Pro Tempore of the Senate upon the joint recommendation of 
the majority and minority leaders, the Office of Public Integrity would 
investigate complaints of rules violations filed with or initiated by 
the office.
  At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate 
needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We should do this not 
just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee 
currently undertakes but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in 
any body that regulates itself. By rejecting the creation of a new 
office with the capacity to conduct and initiate investigations, and a 
perspective uncolored by partisan concerns or collegial relationships, 
we neglected to address this longstanding structural problem.
  The proposed Office of Public Integrity would not only have assisted 
in performing existing investigative functions, but would also have 
been charged with approving or denying requests for travel by members 
and staff. Rather than prohibit official travel paid for by any entity 
other than the Federal Government, as some have proposed, our proposal 
would have required that all travel to be precleared. The purpose of 
this prec1earance was to ensure that the trips serve a legitimate 
governmental interest, and are not substantially recreational in 
nature. The Office of Public Integrity would have been an appropriate 
entity to conduct these review, but, sadly, the Senate voted to 
maintain the status quo.
  Another critical aspect of reform that is not addressed in this bill 
is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay 
the rate of a first-class plane ticket. Because cloture was invoked on 
this bill yesterday, Senator Santorum and I were prevented from 
offering an amendment that would have required Senators and their 
employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market 
value for that travel.
  Senator Santorum and I were well aware that our amendment would not 
be popular with some of our colleagues, but we felt that the time had 
come for us to fundamentally change the way we do things in this town. 
Much of the public views our ability to travel on corporate jets, often 
accompanied by lobbyists, while only reimbursing the first-class rate, 
as a huge loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right; it 
is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to fly around 
the country on a very comfortable corporate-owned aircraft and only be 
charged the cost of a first-class ticket. It is a pretty good deal we 
have got going here. We need to face the fact that the time has come to 
end this Congressional perk.
  There is a public perception that these lobbyist-arranged flights 
unduly influence Members of Congress and serve as a way for lobbyists 
to curry favor with legislators and their aides. We must change that 
perception. There was nothing in our amendment that would have 
prohibited a Member from using corporate aircraft. It simply required 
that they pay the fair market value of the flight. It was a fair, 
reasonable approach designed to prove to the American public that we 
are serious about reform and would do what is necessary to restore the 
public's trust. But, again, the Senate chose to maintain the status quo 
by preventing us from offering our amendment.
  Finally, this bill does not go far enough to rein in the practice of 
earmarking Federal funds in the annual appropriations bills. Together 
with Senators Coburn, Ensign, Feingold, Kyl, DeMint, Sununu, and 
Graham, I was prepared to offer an amendment that would amend the 
Senate rules to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized 
appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills and 
conference reports in an effort to rein in wasteful porkbarrel 
spending. If the point of order were successful, the objectionable 
provisions would be stricken and the related funding would be reduced 
accordingly. Once again, we were blocked from offering this amendment 
as well.
  In my judgment, if we are really committed to addressing 
comprehensive lobbying reform in a meaningful and effective way, we 
need to include earmark reform provisions in this legislative package. 
The process is clearly broken when each year Congress continues to 
earmark billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, sometimes with 
little or almost no knowledge about the specifics of those earmarks by 
most of the Members of this body. Sadly, the scandal that has come to 
light recently concerning the earmarking by one former Member of the 
House is a pox

[[Page S2501]]

not just on him, but on each of us and the process that we have allowed 
to occur on our watch. The American public deserves better and that is 
what my amendment was about.
  In 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2005, there were 15,877--an 
increase of nearly 400 percent. But there was a little good news for 
2006 solely due to the good sense that occurred unexpectedly when the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an 
amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year 
for just that bill. Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it 
doesn't change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still 
occurred in the last 3 years--2004, 2005, and 2006.
  Now, let's consider the level of funding associated with those 
earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion 
in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 
percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks 
decreased. Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more 
than tripled in the last 10 years. This is wrong and disgraceful and we 
urgently need to make some changes in this process.
  We, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in 
a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and 
confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a 
thriving democracy. And, a democratic government operates best in the 
disinfecting light of the public eye. This bill could go so much 
further to balance the right of the public to know with its right to 
petition government; the ability of lobbyists to advocate their 
clients' causes with the need for truthful public discourse; and, the 
ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our government 
must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We 
must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's 
confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. We 
can, and we must, do better than this bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when Jack Abramoff pled guilty in 
January, it was clear that the Senate would have to address lobbying 
and ethics reform this year. For a short time, it seemed like 
significant reforms had become possible. While this bill contains many 
positive provisions, it falls too far short of what I hoped could be 
achieved for me to support it. So I will vote no.
  Ethics reform is not something that happens around here every year. 
Unfortunately, it takes a perfect storm to get Congress to address 
these difficult issues. We had that perfect storm this year with the 
Jack Abramoff scandal, which exposed the seamy side of relations 
between lobbyists and Members of Congress. We had a chance to take 
decisive action and really change the way things work in Washington. 
Unfortunately, we have missed that chance.
  We had the chance to give the American people what they want and 
deserve--a strong brew of tough lobbying and ethics reforms. Instead, 
all we gave them is weak tea.
  The lobbying and ethics reform bill before us today includes a number 
of significant provisions, such as improvements in lobbying disclosure. 
But the Senate missed a once-in-a-decade opportunity to address the 
most serious ethical problems plaguing Congress. It left open a major 
loophole in the lobbyist gift ban, it retreated from earlier promises 
to get rid of privately funded travel, it allowed Members to continue 
getting around revolving door restrictions by simply avoiding direct 
conversations with their former colleagues while accepting millions of 
dollars to run a lobbying office, and it refused to even vote on a 
proposal to make Senators pay the charter rate if they want to fly on 
corporate jets. Perhaps most important, the Senate rejected a 
thoughtful proposal to establish an independent ethics enforcement 
office.
  The American people want to have confidence that their elected 
officials are held to the highest ethical standards. My judgment is 
that this bill doesn't meet that test.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate failed to live up to its 
responsibility to keep faith with the American people and change the 
way business is done in Washington. I oppose the lobbying reform bill 
because it does not go far enough to effectively change the way 
business is done in Washington.
  It is not enough to reform the earmarking process. It is not enough 
to ban gifts and meals from lobbyists. It is not enough to rein in pay-
to-play schemes like the Republican K Street project. Changing the 
rules does no good if we have ineffective enforcement and fundamental 
reform is needed.
  It is not reform if business as usual continues and the fox is left 
guarding the chicken coop.
  We need an outside entity, whether a congressional inspector general, 
as I proposed, or an ethics commission, as Senator Obama proposed, or 
an Office of Public Integrity as Senators Collins and Lieberman 
proposed, to police Congressional ethics violations. It is wrong that 
the Senate failed to establish an Office of Public Integrity. Some of 
my colleagues apparently are fine with the status quo. I couldn't 
disagree more strongly. We need an independent entity to ensure Members 
act ethically. We need an independent entity to ensure that no one 
changes the rules as they play the game as the House tried to do just 
last year. We need an independent entity to ensure that violations are 
investigated and that offenders are punished. Without such an 
independent entity, this attempt at ethics reform runs the risk of not 
being considered real or serious.
  The fact is that Congress has not been able to effectively 
investigate or appropriately punish its Members for ethical violations. 
Last year, House Republican leaders were forced to rescind their 
attempts to change their Ethics Committee rules to protect former House 
majority leader Tom DeLay from further ethics investigations. The House 
Ethics Committee never sanctioned Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, and 
neither the House nor the Senate Ethics Committees has opened an 
investigation into the Jack Abramoff scandal. We can tinker with 
disclosure and gift rules all we want, but until we get tough on 
enforcement, no significant change will happen.
  A few weeks ago, former Representative ``Duke'' Cunningham received 
the longest prison sentence ever imposed on a former Member of 
Congress. His crime? Collecting $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique 
furnishings, and other bribes--including a Rolls-Royce--from defense 
contractors. This disgraceful conduct--beyond comprehension for me and 
most of my colleagues--earned him 8 years and 4 months in a Federal 
prison and orders to pay the Government $1.8 million in penalties and 
$1.85 million in ill-gotten gains.
  What is almost as shocking as Duke Cunningham's bribes is that under 
today's rules, the American taxpayer is still paying for his 
congressional pension--a pension worth approximately $40,000 per year. 
Under today's rules, Duke Cunningham will collect his pension--paid for 
by the American taxpayers--while he sits in jail for violating the law 
and ethics as a Congressman. That is simply unacceptable. And it has 
got to change.
  That is why Senator Salazar and I introduced the Congressional 
Pension Accountability Act and attempted to offer as an amendment to 
the lobbying reform bill. Our amendment would have denied Federal 
pensions to Members of Congress who are convicted of white-collar 
crimes such as bribery--Members who perform acts like Randy ``Duke'' 
Cunningham.
  As elected representatives, we must hold ourselves and all those who 
represent the Federal Government to the highest ethical standards. The 
principle is a simple one: Public servants who abuse the public trust 
and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer-financed 
pensions. Right now, only a conviction for a crime against the United 
States, such as treason or espionage, will cost a Member of Congress 
their pension. There is no reason the law should not be changed to 
ensure that Congress does not reward unethical behavior. But because 
debate on the lobbying reform bill was unnecessarily limited, I was 
prevented from offering my amendment to prevent Duke Cunningham and 
other Members who violate the law from collecting their pensions.
  There are other important issues that the lobbying reform bill fails 
to address. For example, although the bill bans gifts and meals from 
lobbyists, it does not apply to the organizations that employ the 
lobbyists. Nor does it

[[Page S2502]]

apply to lobbyists paying for parties to ``honor'' or ``recognize'' 
Members. And although the bill increases the amount of time that 
Members and senior executive branch officials are prohibited from 
making lobbying contacts and conducting lobbying activities from 1 to 2 
years, it does include organizing and directing a lobbying campaign in 
the prohibited activities. Thus, a former Member or senior executive 
branch official cannot make contact directly, but they can direct 
partners or employees in a lobbying strategy. The bill does not include 
any restrictions on lobbyists soliciting and organizing fundraisers or 
serving as treasurers on officeholder committees, nor does it prohibit 
special interest groups from paying for and organizing congressional 
travel junkets.
  These are serious problems with this lobbying reform legislation. It 
simply does not go far enough to have a real impact on the way business 
is done in Washington. And, frankly, it is not surprising given the 
limited amount of floor debate we had on the bill and the number of 
important amendments that were never offered or debated because we were 
rushed to a cloture vote. I am disappointed that we could not take 
advantage of this unique moment in history and enact serious lobbying 
reform. I am voting against this package because the American people 
deserve a strong reform bill and this does not meet that test.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to clarify where we are, we do have three 
remaining amendments by Senator Ensign, and there are other Senators 
who are working on those amendments and discussing them with Senators 
who have some concerns. Hopefully, we can work out all of them or a 
couple of them. It may be a few more minutes.
  When that is done, we will then dispose of those amendments one way 
or another, and we will be able to go to final passage.
  I will be glad to yield the floor at this time so Senator Dodd can 
make some comments, maybe go over some of the items we have in this 
legislation, and I will join him at some point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I 
would like to do that while we are awaiting final resolution of these 
remaining issues which we can, hopefully, conclude in short order and 
then go to final passage of this bill.
  I begin by again commending my colleagues from Mississippi and from 
Maine, Senator Lott and Senator Collins, and my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and their staffs and our staffs for the 
tremendous work they have done on a bill going back some weeks now.
  As my colleagues recall, we began consideration of this matter some 
weeks ago. We were derailed for reasons that were beyond our control. 
There were matters that arose of national significance and importance, 
and Members rightly wanted to consider some of those issues in the 
midst of this debate.
  Nonetheless, I believe we put together a good product. It does not 
include every idea that surfaced during the consideration of these 
proposals, but I think it is a very solid effort and one in which my 
colleagues can rightfully claim credit and with some degree of pride 
for what we have done.
  I again commend the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs for handling a major part of this effort, and again the Rules 
Committee for coming out with a bill, a unanimous vote out of our 
committee, with matters we considered and presented to our colleagues 
for their full consideration.
  This is not a perfect bill. In my 25 years, I have yet to see one of 
those. But we have a pretty good one, given the constraints of time and 
invocation of cloture which left behind some very important amendments, 
amendments which I would have strongly supported had they been offered.
  Nonetheless, this is a strong bill. It bans gifts and meals from 
lobbyists altogether. That is a major step in reform.
  It requires additional and more frequent disclosure of lobbying 
activities.
  It places tight new limitations, including Ethics Committee 
preapproval, on congressional travel funded by outside sources.
  It increases the transparency of the earmark process. It toughens the 
conflict of interest rules for Members. It tightens the revolving door 
provisions of Senate rules and bans floor privileges for former Members 
who become lobbyists.
  Further, it bans inappropriate attempts to influence hiring decisions 
by lobbying firms, such as the K Street Project.
  It broadens disclosure requirements for massive grassroots lobbying 
efforts.
  It requires that conference reports be available on the Internet 
before they are considered by the full Senate. And it makes other 
important changes to strengthen and tighten current lobbying laws.
  This is no small achievement. Just those provisions alone are 
included in this bill which we will be voting on in very short order.
  This bill is the result of the work, as I mentioned earlier, of two 
separate committees, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the Rules Committee of this body. Both of these 
committees held hearings and markup sessions on those issues within 
their jurisdiction and reported measures on a bipartisan basis to 
improve the transparency of our legislative work.
  I know it doesn't happen with great frequency any longer, but it is 
how this institution is supposed to operate: have hearings, have 
markups, try to build bipartisan consensus whenever we 
can. Unfortunately, that bipartisan process is becoming the exception, 
not the rule, I say with a great degree of disappointment. It used to 
be that this was standard operating procedure. I am saddened to say now 
it has become the exception, as I said, unfortunately, and not the 
rule.

  These two bills were joined together in one piece of legislation on 
the Senate floor. Consideration of this matter has been truly a 
bipartisan effort. I have been honored to serve as the floor manager, 
along with the majority floor manager who is here, the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, and I commend my colleague for his 
diligence in bringing this legislation to the floor. He advised me very 
early in the session that he intended to craft a lobbying reform bill, 
to have a full and open markup in the Rules Committee, and offer all 
members of that committee the opportunity to offer amendments. That is 
what he did, and that is why I think we ended up with as strong a bill 
as we did. Because we had the opportunity to fully debate and amend the 
chairman's mark in the committee, we were able to produce an original 
bipartisan bill that was reported to the Senate unanimously. That 
beginning boded well for this legislation.
  I also want to commend, of course, our comanagers of the bill--I have 
mentioned already Senator Collins of Maine--and my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for their very similar bipartisan 
approaches to this legislation. As I noted earlier, it is unusual to 
have a bill that is reported from two different committees merge 
together on a single measure on the Senate floor, but even more 
unusual, I suspect, is that the bill would be managed by Senate 
colleagues from the same State, in this case my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I. This may be the first time that 
has ever happened, I might point out, in this Chamber.
  I also want to commend our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, 
for their efforts to accommodate this bill in the very busy Senate 
schedule and for allowing this measure to remain the pending business, 
even in the face of other priorities. In particular, I commend Senator 
Reid for his leadership on lobbying reform and for his efforts in 
introducing the very first comprehensive lobbying reform measure in 
this Congress. In large part we are here today because of Senator 
Reid's early and persistent efforts to respond to this crisis of 
confidence of the American people following the Jack Abramoff scandal 
in the House of Representatives, a matter involving the bribery 
conviction of a Member of that body and the legal proceedings against 
certain administration officials involving allegations of lobbying-
related improprieties.
  That is why we are here debating this measure, because of that 
scandal of the

[[Page S2503]]

illegal activities of a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, that rocked the House 
of Representatives. The serious allegations have led to guilty pleas by 
former Members and their staffs, and the activities of Abramoff and his 
cronies, wherein they violated current lobbying gift and ethics rules, 
creating a climate of disillusionment, unfortunately, and distrust of 
the United States Congress. I suspect we have not seen the end of the 
indictments, nor the full breadth of this scandal, unfortunately.
  But to the credit of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, the 
United States Senate has acted not in haste but in a measured response 
to this scandal. Our goal is to ensure the confidence of the American 
people in their system of representative government by ensuring that 
special interests cannot operate under a cloak of darkness.
  This bill, with its extended disclosure requirements of lobbying 
activities and its restrictions on the type of influence lobbyists can 
exert over Members of Congress through lobbying gifts, I think, can go 
a long way toward restoring the confidence of ordinary Americans in 
their Government. We must now get this bill married to the House bill 
and get it enacted into law, and that will be a task, given the 
shortened calendar of this election year. But we cannot neglect this 
final chapter in our effort to bring real reform to Washington.
  Lobbying reforms are important and certainly will change how business 
is done in our Nation's Capital. But these changes alone will not 
address what I have consistently stated is the core problem, the one 
that still hangs out there, and that is the need for true, meaningful 
campaign finance reform that breaks the link between the legislative 
favor seekers and the free flow of special interest private money. That 
would be a much more significant reform, in my view, than all of the 
reforms that we have accomplished with this legislation, as important 
as they are.
  I am grateful to my colleagues for heeding the concerns that we not 
mix lobbying reform and campaign finance reform in one measure, and I 
remain committed to seeing that this body addresses real campaign 
finance reform. But I am equally committed to seeing that we do not do 
so on this important piece of legislation.
  We are all aware that the House leadership has included major 
campaign finance measures in its lobbying reform bill. I am very 
grateful to our colleagues in seeing to it that our efforts down the 
road will exclude those kinds of provisions in the final product. In 
the meantime, I welcome the opportunity to have as complete a debate on 
campaign finance reform issues as we have had on lobbying reform. 
Chairman Lott, my good friend, has indicated his willingness to hold a 
hearing on this issue in the Rules Committee. I would like to go 
further than that and hear him commit to a markup on the bill. He has 
not gone that far yet, but he has committed to a hearing. I will take 
victories as I can get them. If I can get a hearing, I will take the 
hearing, and then I will be lobbying him, without buying him a lunch, 
to see if we can't get a markup of a good campaign finance reform bill.
  But for now, we should commit ourselves to moving forward to 
conference with the House. I urge the House to move forward as well on 
this important lobbying reform bill. If the introduced version is any 
indication, as it appears, the House-passed bill will be substantially 
weaker than the job we have completed here--in a number of key 
respects. We must hold fast to our stronger provisions whenever 
possible as we move forward. The American people are looking forward to 
us putting our house in order and ensuring that lobbying scandals of 
the House are not repeated anymore in this Chamber.
  So, again, I commend my colleagues for their tremendous work on this 
bill. It is a good bill. It is one we can be proud of, and I look 
forward to its adoption and moving to conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  The bill before us has been improved by the amendments offered and 
debated here in the Senate. There is no reason to believe that we 
cannot continue to build on these provisions in conference with the 
House. Although the Majority in the House only recently introduced 
their lobbying reform measure, I encourage the Leadership to move the 
measure expeditiously so that we can complete a conference on this 
measure before Congress gets bogged down in the fall campaigns.
  I commend my colleagues, Senator Lott and Senator Collins, and my 
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for their leadership in 
bringing this bill to this point. I also want to thank the capable 
staff of the Senate Rules Committee, Majority counsel Alexander 
Polinsky and staff director Susan Wells, for their many courtesies and 
assistance both during mark-up of this measure in Committee and during 
the floor debate.
  I also want to thank the staff of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee for their efforts to successfully merge 
these two bills and jointly support the managers. In particular, I want 
to thank the Majority staff director and chief counsel, Michael Bopp, 
and Senator Lieberman's Democratic staff, in particular his staff 
director and counsel, Joyce Rechtschaffen, chief counsel Laurie 
Rubenstein, and counsel Troy Cribb.
  I also want to thank my very capable staff, including my committee 
staff director and chief counsel, Kennie Gill; our elections counsel, 
Veronica Gillespie, and Democratic staff members Candace Chin, Joe 
Hepp, Colin McGinnis, and Carole Blessington.
  And of course, no legislative effort of this magnitude could be 
accomplished without the assistance of our floor staff. Marty Paone and 
David Schiappa are invaluable in their efforts to structure our 
unanimous consent requests to accommodate our colleagues and the Senate 
schedule. Lula Davis and our cloakroom staff as well as our leadership 
staff are indispensable to us in our roles as floor managers.
  I say to all of these staff, and the many hundreds of others who work 
night and day to bring good legislative ideas to fruition and work to 
manage the Senate floor and its proceedings, job well done. This is 
legislation that will truly make a difference in how the American 
people view their government and will hopefully help to reconnect us to 
the people we serve.
  I appreciate the cooperation of our colleagues and look forward to 
working with them as we move this bill to conference with the House.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend and respond in the same sense and 
vein of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. Before I do that, 
and talk further about our relationship and how the Rules Committee 
package came together, I would like to call on my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Maine, to go over the specifics of what is 
included in the bill out of her committee work, and with Senator 
Lieberman. I have never worked with a floor manager who has been more 
enjoyable than working with the Senator from Maine, her attitude and 
her help, her tenacity, and also, of course, Senator Dodd. But I 
thought before I respond further to Senator Dodd, I would like for us 
to understand the details of what was in the legislation that came out 
of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first let me begin by thanking my 
colleague from Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for 
his extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill forward. I also want 
to commend the ranking member of the committee, Senator Dodd. This has 
been an unusual and extraordinary experience where we have two 
committees that produced bipartisan bills with overwhelming support--
only one negative vote between the two committees--and have brought 
legislation to the Senate floor where it was married together and 
presented to the full Senate. I am very proud that there has not been a 
single party-line vote that has occurred as we considered this bill, 
both in committee--in my committee, anyway--and also here on the Senate 
floor. I do think this is a model for how the Senate should act, that 
we can act together in a bipartisan way and look at how much we can get 
done when we do so.
  So I salute Senator Lott and Senator Dodd for their extraordinary 
leadership. I also thank the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security 
Committee, Senator Lieberman, for all that he has done to advance this 
very important cause. Senators McCain and Santorum also were key 
figures. Senator McCain introduced one of the earliest bills. Senator 
Santorum brought

[[Page S2504]]

together a bipartisan group which agreed on certain principles that 
became the foundation of the legislation before us. The Senate majority 
leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Reid, worked 
together to ensure that we would complete action on this bill. I must 
say, when the bill was pulled before, I was worried about whether we 
would return to finish the job. We have done just that, and I am proud 
of that activity.
  This legislation is a strong bill. It may not be a perfect bill--we 
probably would all have different definitions of what a perfect bill 
would be--but it is a strong bill that I believe will help to enhance 
public confidence in the integrity of Government decisions. Let me 
describe some of the major provisions of the bill as approved and, in 
particular, the emphasis on the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee's provisions.
  First of all, we greatly strengthened the disclosure required by 
lobbyists. The legislation requires quarterly filings rather than the 
present semiannual filings by lobbyists, and it ensures that the 
information is made available to the public on the Internet. We will 
have stronger, more accessible disclosure reports. This is important in 
terms of ensuring that there is adequate sunshine on these activities. 
Our goal, which would be accomplished by this bill, is to have lobbying 
disclosure reports on a searchable, easily accessible public database, 
so that the public can evaluate the spending that is occurring, and so 
that they know who is lobbying whom. I think disclosure is going to 
make a big difference, and we put some teeth in the disclosure process 
by doubling the maximum penalty for noncompliance to $100,000. I think 
that is going to provide ample incentive for prompt and full 
disclosure.
  Another provision of the bill will provide for auditing and oversight 
of the lobbyists' disclosure reports by the Comptroller General, the 
head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO will do some 
random audits, give us advice, and help us understand weaknesses in the 
current system.
  Another important provision that really hasn't been discussed much on 
the Senate floor is that the legislation provides for mandatory ethics 
training for Members of Congress and congressional staff. I think this 
is important as well. I think a lot of times people aren't fully 
informed of what the rules are. We are going to require mandatory 
training for both Members and their staffs.
  Another provision of the legislation addresses the so-called 
revolving door issue where Members of Congress and high-ranking staff 
leave Government for jobs focused on the institution in which they once 
served. We extend the cooling off period during which a former Member 
of Congress or a former senior executive branch official may not lobby 
from 1 year to 2 years. We also make an important change in the so-
called revolving door provisions as they apply to senior staff. Right 
now the limitation is that a staff member cannot lobby the specific 
office for which he or she worked for a 1-year period. We retain that 
1-year period--the cooling off period--but we extend it to the entire 
Senate or the entire body in which the staffer worked. So I think that 
is a significant strengthening of the revolving door provisions.
  Our legislation also, for the first time, prohibits lobbyists from 
providing gifts and travel that Members and staff are prohibited from 
accepting under the ethics rules. The burden has always been on 
Members. We have a parallel requirement placed now, for the first time, 
on lobbyists, and I think that is going to make a difference as well. I 
am pleased that we adopted an amendment on the Senate floor to draw a 
bright line to make it clear that lobbyists cannot provide gifts to 
Members, including meals.
  Another provision of our bill, this provision authored by Senator 
Coleman, would create a commission to look over our ethics laws and 
rules and to make recommendations to Congress by July 1 of this year on 
any further changes that would be appropriate.
  Again, I think this is an excellent bill. It is an important step 
forward toward the goal of restoring public confidence in the decisions 
that we make.
  Some people asked: Why does this matter? Why should we be even 
spending time strengthening our lobbying disclosure laws, prohibiting 
practices that might undermine the public's confidence in Government?
  The reason this is so worthwhile and so important is that we cannot 
tackle the big issues facing our country if the public doesn't trust us 
to act in the public interests. Too often, the public is convinced that 
the big decisions are tainted by undue influence. Lobbying conjures up 
images of all-expense-paid vacations masquerading as factfinding trips, 
or special access that the average citizen does not have, or decisions 
that are tainted by improper influence. That means the public doesn't 
have confidence that we will do the right thing, that we will act in 
the public interest rather than to meet the wishes of some special 
interest. That is why this matters. The experts tell us over and over 
again that there are so many important issues--entitlement reform, for 
example--that we should be tackling. But if the public doesn't trust 
us, if the bonds of trust between public officials and their 
constituents are frayed, then it is very difficult for us to make the 
difficult choices, for us to make the hard decisions. That is why this 
matters. That is why this legislation is so important. In many ways, it 
is the foundation that allows us to proceed to tackle the challenges 
facing our great Nation.

  I am very pleased and proud today that we have come together. I 
believe this legislation will be overwhelmingly adopted by the full 
Senate, and that is as it should be. I am also very pleased to see the 
ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee has joined us on 
the floor. As I said earlier when he was not on the floor, he has been 
such a valuable partner. His commitment to good government and to 
repairing the public trust in government is second to none. It has been 
a pleasure to work with him as well as with Senator Lott and Senator 
Dodd as we brought forward this bipartisan endeavor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the bill. Let me 
first thank my chairman, Senator Collins, for her extraordinary 
leadership in a good cause and in a characteristically, for her, not 
partisan way. I thank her for her kind words. I appreciate that she 
said them when I wasn't in the room. Somebody told me after I had been 
in Washington for a while, if somebody compliments you when you are not 
in the room, then you know they really mean it. I appreciate that from 
Senator Collins.
  It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, my 
dear friend, my senior Senator from Connecticut. This has been a strong 
foursome. Probably there should be an alliterative ``F,'' like the 
faithful or ferocious foursome. But this has been an important 
precedent and one that has served the Senate well.
  We had two committees, each with jurisdiction over part of lobbying 
reform. The leadership worked together to meld the products of both 
committees so we could consider this matter. It is actually quite a 
valuable precedent for other large subject matter interests Members of 
the Senate have which often get divided into pieces based on committee 
jurisdiction. I am very grateful to my three colleagues, and with some 
real sense of pride, I rise to express strong support for the Lobbying 
Transparency and Accountability Act on which we will vote shortly.
  This legislation contains very significant reforms in a number of 
critical areas. It ends all gifts to Members from lobbyists. It 
requires significantly increased disclosure from those who are paid to 
influence Members of Congress. For the first time ever, it would shine 
sunlight on the activities of those who are paid to generate advocacy--
phone calls, letters to congressional offices, so-called grassroots 
lobbying. It significantly slows the so-called revolving door by 
doubling the ban on lobbying by Members once they leave Congress and 
significantly expanding the rules covering who staff can and cannot 
lobby.
  This is not popular stuff inside here, but it is the right thing to 
do, and we are about to do it. In short, this legislation upends the 
status quo with regard to oversight of lobbying and the relationship 
between lobbyists and Members of Congress. This upending of

[[Page S2505]]

the status quo is justified by the recent scandals that have afflicted 
us here in Washington, most prominently the crimes of lobbyist Jack 
Abramoff.
  Trust between the people and their elected leaders is essential to 
our democracy. The behavior of Mr. Abramoff and his associates and some 
Members of Congress has undercut that trust and sent the message to too 
many people across our great country that in Washington, results go too 
often to the highest bidder, not to the greatest public good. That is 
not the truth. But this legislation upends that perception, I believe, 
and the status quo.
  There are many people to thank. I begin as I have with Senator 
Collins for her usual outstanding leadership. After a hearing in late 
January, she was ready to mark up legislation a month later, despite a 
large workload our committee had in conducting the ongoing Katrina 
investigation. The legislation we passed out of our committee contained 
significant reforms that will not only change the way lobbyists and 
Members of Congress interact but again, I believe, provide the American 
people with additional information that they have not had before, and 
that the media has not had access to before, about where billions of 
dollars for lobbying are being spent and for what purpose.
  The measure approved by our Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee requires lobbyists to report more details, 
significantly more details, and to report more frequently about their 
activities, including lobbyists' campaign contributions to Members of 
Congress, lobbyists' contributions to political action committees, and 
lobbyists' fundraising events hosted or sponsored by lobbyists or for 
their benefit for Members of Congress. They would also be required to 
disclose travel they arrange for Members of Congress or executive 
branch officials. All lobbyists' disclosures would have to be made 
quarterly rather than semiannually, and they would have to be made 
online so that anyone who wished to monitor lobbyists' activities would 
be able to do so online and do so, obviously, on a public, searchable 
database.

  For the first time ever, a relatively new but significant aspect of 
lobbying Congress would be subject to disclosure of the money they 
spend. These are the so-called grassroots lobbying campaigns, 
familiarly known around here as Astroturf campaigns because they are 
manufactured. They are not just grass that naturally grows or letters 
or e-mails and calls that naturally come to Members of Congress on an 
issue, but they are organized. That is OK. No matter how it happens, 
when we hear from members of the public, it is important for us. But a 
lot of money is spent on these campaigns. It is a significant part of 
lobbying in Washington today. Those lobbyists ought to disclose how 
much money they earn or spend.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, 
for working with me on this effort. He has fought for this for a long 
time--more than a decade. I believe this is a significant victory, and 
it directly responds to the activities of Mr. Abramoff and his 
associate, Michael Scanlon, who sought and received multimillion-dollar 
contributions from Native-American tribes to a grassroots lobbying 
effort. In fact, Mr. Abramoff received enormous kickbacks from that 
grassroots organization.
  The major impact on grassroots lobbying firms is simply that they 
will, for the first time, have to disclose. There is nothing in here 
that inhibits grassroots lobbying. There is nothing in here that 
inhibits in any way the freedom of the American people to petition 
their Government, the freedom of companies to hire out--make money--to 
organize the public to petition Members of the Government. It is simply 
a requirement that they reveal how much money they have charged and how 
much money they have spent.
  That requirement to disclose clearly would have stopped this scheme, 
this scam which Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon were carrying out because 
the disclosure of the grassroots lobbying firm would have shown 
enormous amounts of money coming in, much more than was being spent. 
The result, obviously, the answer to that puzzle, was that too much was 
going to Mr. Abramoff in kickbacks.
  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as I 
mentioned, slows the revolving door between Congress and K Street by 
doubling, to 2 years, the amount of time a former Member of Congress 
must wait before lobbying his or her former colleagues. This is a 
significant change; not one that I would say is inherently popular 
here, but it is the right thing to do, and this legislation does it.
  The leadership of the Rules Committee, as I said earlier, Chairman 
Lott and Senator Dodd, ranking member, has done a great job in 
producing a strong bill from their committee which, combined with ours, 
is now on the Senate floor. Their bill prohibited most gifts from 
lobbyists to Members of Congress and required preapproval and greater 
disclosure of all congressional travel. It also addressed an issue of 
deep significance to an increasing number of citizens by requiring that 
earmarks attached to legislation be listed, explained, and the Member 
behind the earmark be identified. Those are significant changes.
  These reforms were further strengthened on the Senate floor in this 
debate with an amendment by Senator Dodd to make sure that all gifts 
from lobbyists are banned. All gifts from lobbyists to Members of the 
Senate are banned--including meals. This is a real victory for those 
who believe the relationship between Members of Congress and lobbyists 
has grown too cozy.
  The bill was additionally strengthened with an amendment from 
Senators Grassley and Wyden that would abolish the practice of secret 
holds on legislation.
  I also thank Senators McCain, Obama, and Feingold all stalwarts of 
reform and indispensable allies in this endeavor.
  Senator McCain led the hearings of the Indian Affairs Committee 
which--I was going to say revealed--really blew open the Abramoff 
scandal and, when those were finished, drafted legislation to reform 
our lobbying laws, building on what he had learned in the Abramoff 
investigation. I was proud to join him as original cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Senator Feingold actually submitted a lobbying reform package a year 
ago, even before we understood the Abramoff scandal.
  Senate Minority Leader Reid provided essential impetus and I would 
say muscle to the reform cause when he introduced his own reform 
package supported by almost the entire Democratic Senate caucus earlier 
this year.
  Of course, Senator Collins and I are disappointed that the Senate 
yesterday rejected our amendment, introduced with Senators McCain and 
Obama, that would have established an independent Office of Public 
Integrity. I believe this office would have given further assurances to 
the American people that we in Congress are not only dead serious about 
reform, we are dead serious about the enforcement of that reform. I 
regret that a group of us were unable to offer an amendment to increase 
the reimbursement costs of airplane travel provided to Members by 
private entities. But even without those two additional reforms, this 
legislation we are about to adopt sends a clear and powerful message 
that in Washington we ourselves, in pursuit of greater legitimacy and 
credibility and trust of the American people, are taking significant 
steps to make sure that here in this Congress, results go to the 
greatest public good and not ever to the highest bidder.
  I have said many times throughout this debate that we have a once-in-
a-generation opportunity now to reach bipartisan agreement on a broad 
set of reforms that will reduce cynicism, prevent abuse, and restore 
trust of the American people in their Government here in Washington. I 
believe this bill does exactly that.
  On a final note, I wish to thank several staff members of all four 
Senators for their long hours and exceptional hard work on this 
legislation. On my staff, I particularly thank Troy Cribb, who led our 
efforts on this bill, as well as my staff director Joyce Rechtschaffen 
and chief counsel Laurie Rubenstein. They labored to make this bill as 
good as it could possibly be.
  I also thank Michael Bopp, Jennifer Hemmingway, Ann Fisher, and Kurt 
Schmautz on Senator Collins' staff and Kennie Gill and Veronica 
Gillespie on Senator Dodd's staff, and Senator Lott's able staff as 
well. I thank them all, I thank my colleagues.

[[Page S2506]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't want to repeat everything that has 
been said here because we do have the need to move forward. We have 
some amendments we need to dispose of, but let me take a minute to 
comment as to Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins 
and their leadership and the way we work together.
  I wish to do that by reminding you a little bit of history. When we 
started off this year, there were problems that were reflecting on the 
Congress and the way we do business--the Abramoff matter, as Senator 
Lieberman has described. There was a feeling that we needed to address 
some of those concerns. We needed to take a look at our lobbying laws 
and the rules of the institution. There was a concern about, was this 
going to be a panic reaction? Was this going to be everybody taking 
their partisan positions and not ever actually getting anything done, 
just looking for political advantage?
  That could have been what happened, but that is not what happened. It 
started off by strong leadership on both sides of the aisle. Senator 
Santorum was designated by Majority Leader Frist to pull together a 
task force to begin working on issues that needed to be addressed, and 
solutions. Senator Reid stepped right out and started developing a 
package on the Democratic side.
  By the way, I think one of the ways we came to the point where we are 
is that there were some good things in the Reid proposal. When I 
brought up the chairman's mark in the Rules Committee, several of the 
pieces of that legislation came from the Reid ideas. Then it continued 
to move forward with important areas being addressed. I wound up in a 
meeting that was somewhat of an amazement to me because it was a 
bipartisan meeting that included Senator Collins, Senator McCain, 
Senator Santorum, Senator Dodd, Senator Obama, Senator Isakson--a large 
group from both sides of all different political persuasions working 
together to see if we couldn't come up with bipartisan legislation.

  I guess it was about that time when I started talking to Senator 
Dodd, saying: Can we do this together and make it a truly cooperative 
thing? He wanted to do that, but both of us had to make sure leaders 
were OK with that, and they were. They told us: Yes. Do your job and 
operate the way a committee is supposed to act--hold hearings, have a 
markup, report a bill, regular order. That is what we did.
  I am pleased the way this has come about.
  I could go around and commend everybody who has been involved but 
that has already been done very legitimately.
  But this is a case study of an issue that could have blown up. It was 
very tough. It could have produced nothing but acrimony. That is not 
what happened, no.
  It is not a perfect bill. But we have addressed some tough issues. 
When you start talking about outright ban of gifts, outright ban of 
meals from lobbyists, taking action with regard to the flights and 
transparency and disclosure, saying that former Senators cannot come 
onto the floor of the Senate when we are debating legislation where 
they are registered lobbyists, and that also applies to former officers 
of the institution, except for ceremonial events. We also have very 
tight postemployment restrictions, and we address the question of 
earmarks.
  I, for one, think that earmarks--and I don't particularly like that 
description, but where you have a Senator or a Congressman exercising 
their right to have language included in a tax bill or in a highway 
bill or in an appropriations bill for the benefit of some entity that 
they are familiar with or something in their State, I think we should 
have that right. I think it is our constitutional right, as a matter of 
fact, and I will fight for that. I will fight for it even if my 
colleague from Mississippi were not the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. But he worked with us on how we could deal with this issue 
by making sure that it wasn't just about appropriations. It was about 
tax bills coming out of the Finance Committee, and authorization bills, 
too.
  I must say, while I think the language in this area still is not 
totally artfully crafted, we made some real progress there. This was a 
problem that I believe people were concerned about where there was an 
earmark in a conference that had not been considered by either body and 
there was no way to get at it--at a particular item--without a point of 
order, without taking down the whole conference.
  That doesn't make sense. That is not the way the Byrd point of order 
works. So we include that here.
  I think that is where we need to go. We will continue to work with 
Senators on both sides of the aisle, from all persuasions, to make sure 
that we have thought that through carefully and produced the right 
result. But we didn't duck the issue. We stepped up and addressed it by 
bringing people in and talking about the best way to deal with the 
earmarks issue.
  But that leads me to the point that there are some amendments pending 
now and the only three left that do get into this particular area.
  In the effort to move forward and expedite these issues and come to 
conclusion, I think now would be the time to move to an amendment that 
is pending, which I guess would be 2981. I believe Senator Ensign has 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Nevada.


                      Amendment No. 2981 Withdrawn

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order may be raised.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order--
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, don't I have a right to be heard before 
the point of order is raised? I was recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada may proceed.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, Senator McCain and I understand that our amendment is 
going to be ruled nongermane. Previously, it was going to be ruled 
germane. Since then some items were pointed out that has caused the 
amendment to be ruled as nongermane. Despite that fact, I would hope 
that the managers of the bill will work in conference to clarify the 
language of this bill. I know the chairman of the Rules Committee has 
said that he will review this language. I believe he will. Our 
amendment seeks to clarify that if things are put into a conference 
report that were not in either the House bill or the Senate bill, a 
Senator would have the chance to take those items out without taking 
down the entire conference report. One section of this bill creates a 
new point of order against items that are slipped into conference 
reports. The provisions in the bill seek to address what has become a 
very significant problem around here. A member slips something in, 
without debate. That certainly is not an open process. The purpose of 
this lobbying reform bill is to make sure there is more transparency 
and our amendment is consistent with that.
  The way the bill is drafted, there is a problem. The bill uses the 
term matter without providing a definition or examples of anything that 
would be considered a matter.
  According to our discussions with the Parliamentarian, that 
definition would not allow a point of order to be raised because there 
could be no way for the Parliamentarian to interpret the new rule. This 
point of order would basically be null-and-void.
  Our amendment was attempting to clarify the bill by providing a 
definition. That way we will ensure that we have openness in the 
process of conference reports. That certainly is the purpose of our 
bill and of our amendment.
  Without losing my right to the floor, I ask the chairman if he would 
submit to a question through the Chair. I ask the chairman of the Rules 
Committee if he would commit to working on this definition in 
conference so that it will meet with the criteria stated by the 
Parliamentarian to give effect to the rule. That way the provisions of 
this bill will meet with the intent of what

[[Page S2507]]

the Chairman said in his previous statement.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for purposes of debate only, I said in my 
comments before the Senator offered his amendment that I realize it is 
not perfect language. It has been difficult to achieve what we would 
like to achieve. He worked on it in the Rules Committee. Senator 
Cochran made some very important points, and we actually made some 
changes as we went forward. But I think we still have some more work to 
do to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish.
  I will commit to work with Senator Ensign to try to find language 
that does what we are trying to do and which has the support of all 
involved in the discussions this afternoon. I am not sure what the 
Senator is trying to do is what we want to do. But I also realize that 
the language, the wording we have in there, the critical word is pretty 
nebulous. And we will have to work on that.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very simply, I will let people know what 
the intent is. I have worked with Senator McCain. I applaud his 
efforts. He has been doing this a lot longer than I have.
  All we are trying to do is say if something was not in the Senate 
bill, not in the House bill, and it was put in, in the conference, a 
point of order could be raised against that item without bringing an 
entire bill down.
  Right now nobody wants to raise a point of order against a bill 
because they don't want to bring the whole bill down. Senators know we 
have to fund the Government, so nobody wants to bring a point of order 
against a bill that does that. Nobody wants to vote on a point of order 
that brings down the whole bill either. But if something was put in 
which was not in the House bill and not in the Senate bill, we want to 
be able to surgically strike that provision to make sure that we have a 
cleaner process in government. This is not new ground as the Senate 
already has this rule with respect to Budget reconciliation bills.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I will yield for a question without losing my right to 
the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask my colleague, isn't it true that the reason this 
amendment is being proposed is because the Parliamentarian looked at 
the present language and informed the Senator and myself that it is not 
clear enough language that we could actually achieve the purpose of the 
bill that the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Connecticut 
have proposed--in other words, we are in keeping with the intent of the 
language in the bill, and we are trying to clarify it because the 
Parliamentarian said that it is not clear. All we are asking, I think, 
is the managers of the bill to fix it so there is no doubt that we can 
carry out the intent of the legislation which is before this body. That 
is all we are talking about.
  It is also true, if it is not clarified, I will tell my dear friends, 
you will see this amendment again. You will see it again and again. 
This goes to the heart of what we are trying to stop. We are trying to 
stop ANWR from being put into a bill that has nothing to do with it. We 
are trying to stop liability protection for a flu vaccine added at 
midnight which we have never seen before. It is an outrageous abuse of 
the rights of the Members of this Senate who are not members of the 
Appropriations Committee; is that correct?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, those and many other things have been put 
in. Sometimes good things are put in. But that is not the way the 
legislative process is supposed to work. We are supposed to have an 
open process. Senators should be able to see what is in a bill. We 
should provide transparency so that the public can scrutinize what is 
going on. The current process is broken when we are forced to enact 
provisions that were not in either one of the bills.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from 
Connecticut for a question without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. DODD. The Parliamentarian may have suggested something other 
than, but for the purpose of the legislative intent--and sometimes 
debate can be enlightening--legislative intent, as far as this Senator 
is concerned, is exactly as the Senator from Nevada described and the 
Senator from Arizona described, if there is a matter which is neither 
in the House bill nor the Senate bill, and if it ends up in conference, 
that matter is subject to a point of order--and for the very reasons 
which my colleague described.
  I do not know how that is confusing language. If it is, I am 
certainly committed to trying to straighten it out. I believe that is 
the appropriate way to go.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
why would the Senators raise a point of order when this is simply a 
clarification of the intent of the legislation, according to the 
Parliamentarian who has told us--I am asking a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Nevada see my point? There is no 
reason to raise a point of order if all we are doing is clarifying. We 
are wasting the time.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I agree with the Senator from Arizona. I appreciate the 
manager of the bill when he said he would work with us. I wanted it on 
the record that the managers have committed to working with us to 
ensure that the intent of the bill is clear. Which is exactly what our 
amendment seeks to do. The bill managers have put it on the record that 
it is their intent. We hope in this process, as this bill moves 
forward, that the language that is ultimately adopted will include some 
kind of a definition, as we have tried to do, so that the intent of the 
Senate is clear. It needs to be done. We need to clean up the 
appropriations process we have going on in the Senate.
  I don't see any reason to raise a point of order. I think it would be 
easier to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator wishes to proceed with his 
next amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator could give me 60 seconds.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for his approach on this.
  Let me make a couple of points. Again, in a way, there is not as big 
a problem here as indicated. For instance, I have been assured the 
example that was used about ANWR, this, in fact, would apply to that 
and a point of order would be in order against the ANWR amendment being 
added in conference that had not been in the other body. We will work 
through this.
  The second point is and one of the reasons why I was prepared to make 
a point of order, Senator Dodd and I, postcloture, have been very 
meticulous; even when there were amendments he or I or both of us 
supported, if they were not germane, we have not included them in the 
managers' package. We have held the line because once you start 
allowing exceptions, there is no end to it. We were trying to get 
through with as strong a package as possible.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2980

  Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment No. 2980.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, let me discuss this amendment very 
briefly. I want to be cooperative with the managers of the bill. I know 
they want to wrap up this legislation.
  This amendment is germane. We will have a recorded vote on this 
particular amendment, unless the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations agrees to a voice vote that we would win.
  Section 103 of this bill creates a new Senate rule. Each Senator 
knows that we create very few new Senate rules because the rules we 
create are hard to change once created. The rules we make today will 
govern the Senate's conduct for years to come. It is important we get 
language right the first time so we do not have any unintended 
consequences.
  Within the proposed rule in this bill is a definition of the term 
``earmark.'' Many people in my home State of Nevada have heard the 
phrase earmark, as people across the country have. As taxpayers, 
Nevadans understand some earmarks can be costly, some can be 
beneficial. Earmarks are often the result of Senators using their 
influence

[[Page S2508]]

to require Federal agencies to spend significant dollars in their 
States. In some cases, earmarks are given to State or local governments 
or charitable or philanthropic organizations. In many cases, these 
earmarks are justifiable. In many cases, these earmarks have a national 
impact and can be justified because they meet a national purpose.
  Each Senator has seen the abuse of the earmark process. That is why 
we have offered this amendment. To clear up abuses. Our amendment 
provides a clear definition of what an earmark is. Our definition 
clarifies that earmarks are not limited solely to non-Federal entities. 
The definition also includes Federal entities. Spending for federal, as 
well as non-Federal, entities in the earmarking process can be abused.
  The Senator from Mississippi argued earlier it is a Senator's right 
to offer things that are good for their State. Senators have ideas 
about how money should be spent. I actually have no problem with that 
philosophy. I agree to a great degree with that philosophy. The problem 
is that such a process has been abused in too many cases. For instance, 
the military provides a procurement list to the Armed Services 
Committee that includes lists of things the military says they need. In 
order to benefit their state, Senators will contradict the decisions of 
the military and override the military's request. They ignore what is 
in the best interest of the military in order to benefit their State. 
Military is a Federal project but this bill does not provide 
accountability. This bill would continue to allow Senators to put their 
political interests before the needs of the military.
  That is why our amendment expands the definition of earmark to both 
Federal and not just non-Federal entities. That is why we should 
support this amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield.
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator started moving toward giving an example. So 
that I will fully understand exactly what the Senator is trying to get 
at here, can he give me a couple of examples? He has referred to 
military, for instance. I don't want to use any particular weapon 
system because I don't want to make anyone mad, but take generic 
helicopter. If the Pentagon or the President's budget only included 100 
helicopters and a Senator of the Committee on Armed Services, in 
conference, said no, we are going to make it 200, would that be an 
example of where the Senator is trying to get this language to apply?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, if one 
Senator were to raise a point of order against the item you have 
described, the process laid out in this bill would be to have the 
entire Senate decide the matter. If the rest of the Senate believes 
that the additional helicopters are justifiable, then the----

  Mr. LOTT. That is the type of example.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I will give the Senate a more specific example. I will 
not use the exact example I had mentioned to the Senator from 
Mississippi previously because I don't think it is appropriate to 
discuss specifics like this on the Senate floor. The military tells 
Congress that they need certain items for the troops. They want 
something produced. Perhaps similar products are produced in different 
States so there are competing products. The military has said, We like 
this item made by one company, it is far superior. What is happening 
today is that some members, perhaps one on the Military Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, who represent a state with a similar product will use 
their influence to direct spending to products made in their own State. 
Even though the Pentagon says we like product A, Congress tells them 
they must buy product B. When the bill comes back from conference, 
spending gets shifted. Spending is earmarked to go to one product 
instead of for a product that the military said would be best for our 
fighting men and women.
  That is exactly some of the things we are trying to avoid.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would yield for a further question, the 
language we have would allow for that kind of designation to continue?
  Mr. ENSIGN. It would allow for the designation to continue.
  I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, this amendment does not 
affect the point of order in the bill. I apologize if I was unclear on 
that. This amendment affects the requirement that Senators be given a 
report that identifies which members have requested which earmarks. It 
requires that all earmarks be included in that report. That is all this 
amendment is doing. We want Members, if they are going to request 
earmarks and redirect spending, to be identified. If they want to 
direct spending to go to their State, they should be willing to be 
identified. This is a simple sunshine provision. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for a second I will discuss again what the 
amendment is. It requires that all earmarks included in a bill or 
conference report should be clearly listed--the sponsor identified, 
explanation, et cetera.
  I fully support the intent of that requirement. However, the 
underlying definition of the earmark is only ``non-Federal'' at this 
time.
  The point the Senator from Nevada is trying to make in the amendment, 
there are plenty of Federal pork barrel projects, if I may be so blunt. 
Let me give an example. The Army Corps of Engineers is clearly a 
Federal entity. In 2006 we spent $600,000 in the Army Corps of 
Engineers, a Federal entity, to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, WA; 
$275,000 to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from the 
Christina River; $7 Million for the Arctic Energy Office--guess where--
Alaska. Aren't you astonished? And $500,000 for the collection of 
technical and environmental data to be used to evaluate potential 
rehabilitation of the St. Mary's storage unit facility's Milk River 
project, Montana. The list goes on and on.
  These are all out of a Federal entity called the Army Corps of 
Engineers. They should be listed. They should be in the sponsorship, 
they should be required to be listed, and as a Federal entity. So, 
clearly listed, sponsor identified, accompanied by information of the 
essential Government purpose of the legislation.
  We are saying there are earmarks that are Federal entity as well as 
non-Federal entity. That is all this amendment does. It changes it from 
Federal to as well non-Federal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it was interesting to notice the 
arguments of the Senator from Arizona right before we had the vote on 
cloture on this bill. He pointed out what the consequences of cloture 
would be, one of which would be that nongermane amendments could not be 
offered, and he listed two examples, one of which was amendments on 
earmarking.
  I think this amendment, just as the previous amendment, should be 
subject to a point of order. The Parliamentarian sustained the point of 
order that was raised by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and 
Administration, but I am advised that the Parliamentarian would not 
rule that a point of order lies against this amendment. It is clear and 
obvious that it would.
  But notwithstanding that disagreement, this amendment would have the 
most impractical effects and unintended consequences of any I have seen 
offered. What the Senator is suggesting is that anytime you identify a 
project or a program or an entity that is enlarged or constructed in 
any bill--an appropriations bill, an authorization bill from any of the 
authorizing committees--you have to separately list or include in the 
conference report, it is not clear, the identity of those who support 
the inclusion of that or who authored it.
  There are many things here that are sponsored by one Senator, 
cosponsored by many others. In order to meet the criteria of this 
requirement, we would have a voluminous stack of documents presented to 
the Senate when a bill is presented, showing which Senators in 
committee may have offered that amendment or suggested to the committee 
that it be included in the bill, and why.
  We already have committee reports that accompany most pieces of 
legislation that come to the Senate. In that committee report, the 
provisions are discussed, described. It boggles the

[[Page S2509]]

mind to think what the consequences of this one provision would do, the 
paperwork, bookkeeping, and the like. I don't know of any Senator who 
does not want his name associated with a provision that he suggests or 
she suggests be included in a bill, whether it is authorizing language 
or whether it is in an appropriations bill. There is nothing wrong with 
that. I am not arguing that should not be included. It usually is well 
known.
  I plead with the Senate, let's not include this amendment on this 
bill at a time when we are right about to go to final passage. The bill 
reflects the consensus of the Rules Committee. The two managers of this 
legislation did an excellent job of carefully reviewing all the 
suggestions that were out there for lobbying reform, reforms of the way 
the Senate does its business. We are going to have to go to conference 
with the House. If there are better ways to word this earmarking 
provision that is in the bill, there is a provision in the bill, the 
committee signed off on it, and we are coming to the very end of the 
consideration. We are nitpicking. That is what this is, nitpicking. I 
don't know of a better word to describe this amendment. It does not 
serve any useful purpose to inform the public.
  What member of the general public is going to look through documents 
that will be 2 feet high associated with almost any legislation that 
authorizes or appropriates funds for a department's activities for an 
entire year? Think about it. Do not approve this.
  I support the idea that we need to do a better job of controlling 
spending. We need to achieve more in the way of ensuring that projects 
are justified, that they are reviewed more carefully. That is a part of 
this process. That is why this provision is in the bill. I voted for 
it. I supported it in the markup session of our Rules Committee. I am a 
member of that distinguished committee. My colleague from Mississippi 
is the chairman of the committee. I am here supporting the work of his 
committee.
  Friends and colleagues who want to be more demonstrative and more 
zealous and more volatile on the issue of spending restraint now come 
along and insist that we vote on an amendment such as this. We should 
say enough is enough. We have listened to all of the arguments. We have 
brought this bill to the Senate. The consensus has been achieved.
  So, Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is nondebatable.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking consent?
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me say to the Senator from Mississippi, with all 
respect and affection----
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a point of order: Is a motion to table 
debatable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it is not.
  Is there objection to the Senator continuing?
  Mr. ENSIGN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Arizona was 
suggesting that he be allowed 2 minutes to comment on this amendment. I 
have no objection to him having 2 minutes. So I ask unanimous consent 
that he be granted 2 minutes to speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just amend that unanimous consent 
request, in case the Senator from Mississippi wants to respond to those 
2 minutes, that he would have an additional 2 minutes, if he needs it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond as to why this 
amendment is necessary and why I do not think it is nitpicking. I think 
a lot of us would have liked to have known who sponsored the amendments 
that were put into the Defense appropriations bill by former 
Representative Cunningham, who is now in jail. We would have been very 
well illuminated by the tens of millions of dollars that were somehow 
put into an appropriations bill in the middle of the night that none of 
us had ever seen or heard of. And we did not know who was behind it 
until he was on trial.
  It is perfectly clear--it is perfectly clear--that this is not a 
nitpicking amendment. The people of this country deserve to know who 
puts in these projects in conference in the middle of the night, as a 
former Congressman was able to do named Cunningham, ripping off the 
taxpayers of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. That is why 
this amendment is not nitpicking.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--41

     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 2983 withdrawn

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have been asked by the sponsor of the 
amendment to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the final pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. With that, we have finished our amendments on this very 
important legislation. I believe we are almost ready to hear from the 
leaders, and then we will be ready to go to final passage.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am very happy to be here today as we are 
very near to passing the ethics and lobbying reform legislation. This 
is important

[[Page S2510]]

legislation, and it is legislation the American people care about. I am 
so glad the Senate has been able to take the lead in enacting these 
important reforms.
  Let's step back a minute from the details of the legislation and 
remind Members of the Senate and the American public why we are here. 
In the past year, America has been shocked, and some have certainly 
been disgusted, by revelations of corruption in our current system. 
While much of the behavior at issue in some of these scandals is 
already illegal, the scandals have shown that some outsiders and 
insiders believed they could act with impunity. It has shaken public 
confidence in the Congress and our entire Federal Government.
  Congress needed to act aggressively and swiftly, and we did that. I 
am very proud of those on this side of the aisle, in my caucus. When we 
returned to session earlier this year, the first thing we did as 
Democrats was unite behind the Honest Leadership Act. We moved beyond 
principles and speeches and introduced a strong reform bill, with the 
support of virtually the entire caucus. The entire caucus worked to 
achieve the effort here today. Senators Obama and Feingold led the way. 
Then we arrived at the committee structure, where on my side of the 
aisle, Senators Dodd and Lieberman worked with integrity and swiftness, 
intelligence, experience, and part of that was that they worked with 
their counterparts, Senator Collins and Senator Lott, to allow us to 
arrive at the point where we are today.
  The baseline was a bill that we introduced. But people kept pushing 
and we have gotten something done. As I have already said, the Rules 
Committee and Homeland Security Committee worked in a bipartisan way. 
We worked in a bipartisan way to get where we are today. Included in 
the bills that came to this floor was much of what was contained in the 
legislation we introduced, the Honest Leadership Act.
  I express my appreciation to Senators Lott, Dodd, Collins, and 
Lieberman, who have acted, I believe, in an exemplary way in moving 
legislation forward.
  This is a good day for the Senate. I repeat, we are here as a result 
of bipartisan legislation. We are going to complete this legislation. 
This is not a perfect bill, I know that. I would like to have seen some 
other things in this legislation, as would other Democrats, and I am 
sure other Republicans. But the bill makes a number of extremely 
important changes to lobbying disclosure rules and Senate ethics rules. 
In many cases, the legislation is exactly what Democrats called for in 
our Honest Leadership Act.
  Let's talk about what we have done today. We are going to have 
pundits talk about what we didn't do. But let's talk about what we did 
do. We should be proud of what we have done. We are going to extend and 
strengthen rules against the revolving door. We are going to end gifts 
and meals from lobbyists. We have new rules for privately paid travel, 
requiring preclearance and added disclosure. What we will do in this 
legislation is clarify the pay-to-play scheme that some have referred 
to as the K Street Project that is unethical and violates Senate rules. 
This legislation eliminates floor privileges for former Members who 
become lobbyists. This legislation strengthens lobbying disclosure 
rules, and that is an understatement. This legislation requires new 
disclosure of ``astro turf'' lobbying campaigns and stealth coalitions 
used by business groups. This legislation reforms rules regarding 
earmarks, scope of conference, and availability of conference reports. 
We should all feel that is an improvement and a significant step 
forward.
  I repeat that this bill is not perfect, but it is a significant 
improvement over current law and it will help restore the public's 
confidence in Government. I am proud of the efforts of my colleagues to 
get this legislation passed today. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, the majority leader and I are seen in the eyes of the 
public as always being like a couple of bighorn sheep in rutting 
season, running and bashing heads and moving back. That is what the 
public sees. But this legislation could not have come to the floor 
today but for the work we did together--we did together--not anything 
on which we gave speeches and issued press releases. We are here today 
as a result of the work we did together.
  Only the majority leader and I know how difficult it is to get a bill 
to the point it is today. So I extend my hand to the majority leader 
for working with us to get lobbying reform done. I repeat for the 
fourth time during my short remarks today, this is not perfect, but 
people focus on how much we have done to improve the system. There are 
other days and other legislation that can come forward, but today, 
let's feel good about a bipartisan piece of legislation.
  I again express my appreciation to the managers of this bill. They 
did remarkably good work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, earlier this year, I made a commitment, 
with the Democratic leader, to make lobbying and ethics reform a top 
priority this year and not just another political talking point. By 
passing lobbying reform today, the Senate, in a way that demonstrates 
us working together in a bipartisan way, will fulfill that commitment.
  I am pleased the Senate has led the way. We were the first to develop 
ideas through a bipartisan working group, the first to introduce a 
comprehensive lobbying reform package to two committees, the first to 
have those committee hearings and markups, the first to debate those 
issues on the floor of a body, and today we will pass the first 
lobbying reform bill in Congress in over a decade.
  The goals of this legislation are simple, they are straightforward. 
It is about trust. It is about transparency. It is about 
accountability. Trust is the foundation of our democratic government. 
We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. 
The American people have entrusted us with their votes, have entrusted 
us with their hard-earned tax dollars, and they expect us to uphold the 
highest standards of honesty, of integrity. With public opinion of 
Congress at an alltime low, we have to do a better job of regaining 
that trust and that confidence. We must bring more transparency and 
accountability into our Government. We must conduct our Nation's 
business focusing on the public interest and not special interests. By 
passing this bill to reform our lobbying and ethics rules, we will do 
just that.
  Among its many provisions, the bill will enhance public disclosure of 
lobbyist activities and campaign contributions, ban gifts and meals 
from registered lobbyists to Senators and staff, require enhanced 
scrutiny and Ethics Committee preapproval for privately funded travel, 
slow the revolving door between Government and lobbying, and reform our 
earmark process to cut pork-barrel spending.
  I also thank the managers--Senator Lott, Senator Collins, Senator 
Lieberman, and Senator Dodd--for their tremendous work both in their 
respective committees and, indeed, on the floor.
  I thank Senator Santorum, who very early on, on the Republican side, 
stepped forward and with his leadership began a lobbying reform working 
group upon which much of this work has been based. Many of the 
provisions in this bill are, in large part, a result of the meetings he 
had.
  I also thank all of my colleagues, again, as expressed by the 
Democratic leader, on both sides of the aisle--and especially the 
Democratic leader--for their cooperation in moving this legislation 
forward in a way and in a manner which I believe really dignifies this 
body working together.
  A lot of people say we have moved way too fast. An equal number say 
we have moved too slow. Right now, there are many people coming forward 
saying: No, we need to change these provisions. Adding to what the 
Democratic leader said, this is not a perfect bill, but this bill is a 
major step forward. It is a product of working together, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  In closing, most everyone agrees that we have taken the issue of 
lobbying and ethics reform seriously. Indeed, we have. We have produced 
a strong and meaningful result that will have implications for years to 
come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page S2511]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill, as amended, pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is 
absent due to death in family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Coburn
     DeMint
     Feingold
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     McCain
     Obama

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Rockefeller
       
  The bill (S. 2349), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I take no contributions from special 
interest PACS or lobbyists. My office operates under a set of rules 
governing our interaction with lobbyists that is stricter than current 
law. Regardless of any legislation, I always hold myself and my office 
to the highest standard of conduct in our service to the people of 
Wisconsin.
  The past several months, however, have highlighted for congressional 
action on lobbying and ethics reform. Public concern has increased 
about both illegal and unethical activities involving lobbyists. These 
include well-funded special interest groups that disguise their 
activities through the formation of coalitions, associations, and 
grassroots campaigns; improper campaign finance practices; lavish gifts 
to Members of Congress and their staffs apparently in violation of 
current congressional ethics rules; and earmarks slipped into 
legislation as favors for lobbyists without debate on proper 
consideration.
  The actions of others have made it clear that our current regulations 
on lobbying are outdated and ineffective. That is why I supported S. 
2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. It 
is my hope that this legislation will move us toward restoring the 
public confidence in Congress by shining light on congressional 
processes and cracking down on lobbyist influence.
  I realize that this bill falls short in certain areas. I was an 
original cosponsor of the Honest Leadership Act, which would have gone 
even further than the Senate-passed bill in reigning in inappropriate 
gifts, travel, and influence on Members of Congress. I supported 
amendments that would increase the transparency of Senate actions and 
voted against cloture to give other Senators a chance to offer 
amendments to strengthen the bill.
  If the legislation passed by the Senate today had gone further in 
increasing accountability for Members of Congress, it would have gone 
further in restoring the public faith. However, I believe it is also 
our responsibility to balance far-reaching legislation with the time 
constraints before us. This bill is far from perfect but it is an 
important first step in putting an end to the ``culture of corruption'' 
that has become a part of Washington.
  Serving in Congress is a great honor--one we must earn by always 
making the welfare of our constituents and the Nation our sole 
motivation. The current lobbying scandals show how far we have drifted 
from that ideal. But the reforms will do much to correct our course. 
And, as always, I will continue to hold myself and my office to the 
highest standard of conduct in our service to the people of Wisconsin.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. FRIST. 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.

                          ____________________