[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S647-S667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007--Continued


                            Amendment No. 20

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have an amendment, No. 20, which I 
have offered and which I believe we will be voting on at some point, if 
not today then tomorrow. I rise to discuss the amendment and to share 
with my fellow Senators comments that have been made about the 
amendment by those groups in the Nation that would be most affected by 
it.
  My amendment is very simple. It is a single sentence. It strikes 
section 220 of the underlying bill. So the whole focus of this 
discussion has to be on section 220 and what is it and what does it do 
and why do I think it should be stricken.
  If I can go back to the history of this bill, back to the Senate-
passed bill we dealt with in the previous Congress, I can tell you 
where section 220 came from. It was an attempt to deal with what the 
press has labeled ``the astroturf groups.'' That is a little bit hard 
to understand.
  What does astroturf have to do with anything here? There are 
grassroots lobbyists and then there are groups the press has decided 
are phony groups pretending to be grassroots lobbyists. And it is these 
phony groups that they have labeled ``astroturf lobbyists'' and they 
think something ought to be done about it.
  Here is the theoretical definition of an astroturf lobbyist: An 
astroturf lobbyist is someone who gets paid, presumably by a large 
organization--a labor union, a corporation, a trade association, 
whatever it might be--to pretend there is a groundswell of grassroots 
support or opposition for or to a particular piece of legislation. So 
this hired gun, if you will, sends out letters, e-mails, faxes--
whatever it is--to stir up phony grassroots support for or against the 
particular piece of legislation.

  The idea was that this hired gun, this individual who does this is, 
in fact, a lobbyist, even though he or she never talks to a Member of 
Congress, even though he or she may not live in Washington, DC, or even 
come here, even though he or she has no connection with any Member of 
Congress or the staff, because he or she is trying to stimulate 
communications to Congress that have the effect of putting pressure on 
Congress. He or she is a lobbyist and, therefore, must register, must 
report who pays him or her, must go through all of the procedures 
connected with a lobbyist under the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  Put in that narrow context, there may be some justification for 
section 220.
  Now let's step out of that hypothetical context and go to the real 
world, and we discover that section 220 is pernicious in its effect, 
which is why it is opposed all across the political spectrum by those 
who are involved in trying to put pressure on Congress by virtue of 
communicating with their Members.
  On the right-hand side of the slate we have the Eagle Forum, on the 
left-hand side of the slate, if you will, we have the ACLU, and all 
across the spectrum we have a number of groups that are saying: Wait a 
minute, the prohibitions on astroturf lobbyists or grassroots 
lobbyists, as they are called in the bill, are prohibitions that cut to 
the heart of the constitutional right of Americans to petition the 
Government for redress of their grievances.
  I have a letter, a copy of which was sent to every Senator, from the 
ACLU. Knowing what I know about senatorial offices, I think most 
Senators will not see the letter, so I will quote from it and at the 
end of my presentation ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record so that all Senators and their offices can read it.
  Here is what the ACLU has to say about this particular provision:

       Section 220, entitled ``Disclosure of Paid Efforts to 
     Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying'' imposes onerous reporting 
     requirements that will chill constitutionally protected 
     activity. Advocacy organizations large and small would now 
     find their communications to the general public about policy 
     matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to 
     registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and 
     report could have severe civil and potentially criminal 
     sanctions.

  If I can end the quote there and insert this fact: When we adopted 
the Vitter amendment on January 12, we raised that fine to $200,000. 
Someone who gets his neighbors together and says, let's all write our 
Congressmen on this issue, and then spends some money doing it, under 
this provision becomes a paid lobbyist, and if he does not report and 
register would be fined $200,000 for having done that. The ACLU does 
not overstate the case when they say this would have a chilling effect 
on constitutionally protected activity.
  If I can go back to the ACLU letter and continue quoting:

       Section 220 would apply to even small, state grassroots 
     organizations with no lobbying presence in Washington. When 
     faced with burdensome registration and reporting 
     requirements, some of these organizations may well decide 
     that silence is the best option.

  I guarantee you that if this small organization has a lawyer, the 
lawyer will advise them that silence is the best option. The lawyer 
will say: You are exposing yourself to a $200,000 fine if you don't do 
this right, and if you don't have the capacity to go through all of the 
paperwork and be sure you do this right, the best thing to do is simply 
not try to stimulate anybody to write his Congressman or go visit the 
local congressional office.
  Back to the letter from the ACLU:

       It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the 
     separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, 
     speech, and assembly enjoys the highest constitutional 
     protection.

  And for every statement they make here, as you will see when you get 
the letter inserted in the Record, the ACLU gives Supreme Court 
decisions in support of the position, and in many instances they are 
quoting directly from the Supreme Court opinion and not paraphrasing.
  Back to their letter:

       Petitioning the government is--

and this is a subquote from the Supreme Court--

     core political speech,

the ACLU again--

     for which the First Amendment protection is--the Supreme 
     Court--``at its zenith.''

  So we are talking about something the Supreme Court has ruled is at 
the zenith of protected political speech under the first amendment.
  Now, back to another Supreme Court position, quoting again from the 
ACLU:

       Constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least 
     diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others 
     for a fee. Further--from the Supreme Court--``the First

[[Page S648]]

     Amendment protects the right not only to advocate one's 
     cause, but also to select what one believes to be the most 
     effective means of doing so.'' That is from the Supreme Court 
     decision: The right to not only advocate for the cause, but 
     to select what one believes to be the most effective means of 
     doing so.

  A grassroots lobbying group decides in its neighborhood that the most 
effective means of influencing and speaking up on legislation is to 
send out letters to its membership, or perhaps it may decide the most 
effective means would be to buy a mailing list and send out letters to 
the people on the mailing list. As soon as they spend the money to buy 
the mailing list, there is a paid lobbyist involved, and if the 
registration is not correct, there is a $200,000 fine against that 
group, if we leave this provision in the bill as it is.
  The ACLU goes on to make other compelling arguments, but I would like 
to add a few other comments from other sources to show that this is 
from across the board.
  The National Right To Life Committee--not usually associated with the 
ACLU in most people's minds as being on the same side of an issue--they 
say:

       Section 220 defines the act of a constituent contacting a 
     Member of Congress as an act of ``lobbying,'' specifically, 
     ``grassroots lobbying.''

  And then here is what section 220 has to say, quoting directly from 
the bill:

       Grassroots lobbying means the voluntary efforts of members 
     of the general public to communicate their own views on an 
     issue to Federal officials, or to encourage other members of 
     the general public to do the same.

  Let me stress that, again. This legislation says that grassroots 
lobbying is defined as members of the general public communicating with 
their Congressman or encouraging others to do the same.
  I thought that is what we were all supposed to do. I was taught in 
civics class in high school that everyone had the right to do that, 
without being forced to register and report all of their connections if 
somebody pays for it. Again, the Supreme Court says, constitutional 
protection of lobbying is not in the least diminished by the fact that 
it may be performed for others for a fee. But if you mess up your 
forms, if you don't file them on time, if somehow they are confusing to 
you and you have contacted your neighbors or you have purchased a 
mailing list, whether you are Astroturf or grassroots, you are on the 
hook for $200,000, as the bill currently stands.
  Bradley Smith, who is the former chairman of the FEC, along with 
Stephen Hoersting, who is Republican Senatorial Committee general 
counsel, two distinguished lawyers, had this to say on this issue:

       ``Grassroots lobbying'' is merely encouragement of average 
     citizens to contact their representatives about issues of 
     public concern. It is not ``lobbying'' at all, as that phrase 
     is normally used outside the beltway, meaning paid, full-time 
     advocates of special interests meeting in person with Members 
     of Congress away from the public eye. Contact between 
     ordinary citizens and Members of Congress, which is what 
     grassroots lobbying seeks to bring about, is the antithesis 
     of the lobbying at the heart of the Abramoff scandals. It is 
     ordinary citizens expressing themselves. That they are 
     ``stimulated'' to do so by ``grassroots lobbying activities'' 
     is irrelevant. These are still individual citizens motivated 
     to express themselves to Members of Congress.

  The Right To Life letter goes on to say:

       Poorly paid, activist employees of such organizations could 
     receive penalties of up to $200,000 per infraction, or even 
     face a threat of criminal prosecution, even if they never set 
     foot in Washington, D.C., or speak to a Member of Congress or 
     congressional staff.

  Yes, Senator Bennett, that is all very well and good, but what about 
these Astroturf lobbyists? We have to get to that terrible evil. The 
people who say that, quite frankly, probably have never, ever served in 
a congressional office or held public office. And if they have, they 
were pretty unconscious while that was going on.
  I first came to this town as a congressional staffer over 40 years 
ago. I served on the House side; I have served on the Senate side. I 
have been a lobbyist downtown. Yes, I have been one of these paid 
professionals, and I reported all of the things I was required to 
report--went through the whole situation. I was in the executive branch 
as a lobbyist. We didn't call it that. We pretend the executive branch 
doesn't lobby the legislative branch, so it is called ``congressional 
liaison'' or ``congressional relations.'' I was the Director of 
Congressional Relations at the Department of Transportation. I had 
exquisite timing. I left just before they had title inflation, and if I 
had been there a little later, I could say I was an Assistant 
Secretary.
  I understand this. People who have been involved in this understand 
this. When somebody tries to create a truly phony outburst of public 
opinion, the people in the front office of a congressional staff 
recognize it in about 3 nanoseconds. The letters come in. They are all 
identical. You know they are not stimulated by the position of the 
people at home. You know they were written by some professional who is 
taking a fee as an Astroturf lobbyist, if you will. You can see through 
it in an instant. They all come in, almost always in one of these 
simulated kinds of campaigns and somebody ruins it. I have seen these 
postcards, and on one of them is written: Senator, my organization told 
me to send you this. I hope it is helpful. And you know the person who 
wrote that doesn't know what is on it.

  Sometimes they come in and they say: I don't know anything about this 
issue, but I am being asked to send you this postcard. I trust your 
judgment, Senator, and I hope you do the right thing.
  There were times when these phony Astroturf kinds of campaigns were 
so overwhelming in volume that in the office where I was working, we 
didn't read any of it. You identified it immediately, you put them in a 
separate mail sack, and you threw them away. I tell people when they 
come to me and say, What is the best way to influence a Member of 
Congress, it is to stay away from these people because we are smart 
enough to see through it.
  In order to protect the Congress from these kinds of Astroturf 
campaigns, do we have to put a potential $200,000 fine on someone who 
uses his church list to send out a letter and urge people who receive 
the letter to write their Congressman on a particular issue? Do we have 
to expose every group, right and left, that does its best to stimulate 
some kind of interest in an issue to this sort of penalty? What about 
the Internet? What happens if someone goes on the Internet and urges 
everybody who sees his blog to write Congress and then makes the 
mistake of hiring somebody and paying him to write that notice on the 
blog? Has that not created a lobbyist for hire? Somebody finds out the 
man who created the message on the blog got paid and files a complaint. 
I don't know what the lawyers would do with it, whether he would end up 
paying the $200,000, but I do know what he would run up in legal fees 
to protect himself against that kind of situation.
  This is simply something that has been created by virtue of a 
perception of the way grassroots works, a perception that is wrong. 
This should be stricken from the bill. This should not go forward. I 
speak not from my own experience, not from how I feel after 40 years of 
contact with this place in one way or another, but I speak for a vast 
number of groups who are involved in this on the far right, on the far 
left, on every stage of the political spectrum in between, including 
those who are strongly for this bill and including those who say we 
need more transparency, we need to do something about earmarks, we need 
to do something about the more traditional definition of lobbyists 
having undue access. People who say we are for the bill, we are for all 
of these wonderful things, but if you do this, put this in the bill, 
you are on very shaky constitutional ground.
  I have no doubt that if section 220 survives in the bill and ends up 
in the law, it will be struck down as unconstitutional. But in order to 
have it struck down, someone will have to file a lawsuit. Someone will 
have to fund hundreds of thousands and probably millions of dollars to 
take it through a district court and a circuit court and up to the 
Supreme Court, although maybe not. I would think any district judge 
would take one look at this and strike it down. But life being what it 
is, you can never tell about that. The Supreme Court has spoken often 
and repeatedly on this issue. The Supreme Court position is very clear. 
Let's hear them and save the money for the group

[[Page S649]]

that would have to take this to the Supreme Court to try to get it 
reversed. Let's reverse it in the Senate so it does not ever see the 
light of day. I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment that 
would strike section 220 and reaffirm that the zenith of the Bill of 
Rights is free speech, the right to petition your Government for 
redress of your grievances, and the right to peacefully assemble, all 
of which is involved in grassroots lobbying and none of which should be 
criminalized as a result of the legislation that we are considering 
today.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include these letters in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                 Washington, DC, January 17, 2007.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the ACLU, a non-partisan 
     organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and 
     members, and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we urge you to 
     support Bennett Amendment S.A. 20 to S. 1, the ``Legislative 
     Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007'' when it comes 
     to the floor for a vote. This amendment would strike Section 
     220 of the underlying bill.
       Section 220, entitled ``Disclosure of Paid Efforts to 
     Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying'' imposes onerous reporting 
     requirements that will chill constitutionally protected 
     activity. Advocacy organizations large and small would now 
     find their communications to the general public about policy 
     matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to 
     registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and 
     report could have severe civil and potentially criminal 
     sanctions. Section 220 would apply to even small, state 
     grassroots organizations with no lobbying presence in 
     Washington. When faced with burdensome registration and 
     reporting requirements, some of these organizations may well 
     decide that silence is the best option.
       The right to petition the government is ``one of the most 
     precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of 
     Rights.'' When viewed through this prism, the thrust of the 
     grassroots lobbying regulation is at best misguided, and at 
     worst would seriously undermine the basic freedom that is the 
     cornerstone of our system of government.
       It is well settled that lobbying, which embodies the 
     separate and distinct political freedoms of petitioning, 
     speech, and assembly, enjoys the highest constitutional 
     protection. Petitioning the government is ``core political 
     speech,'' for which First Amendment protection is ``at its 
     zenith.''
       Constitutional protection of lobbying is not in the least 
     diminished by the fact that it may be performed for others 
     for a fee. Further, ``the First Amendment protects [the] 
     right not only to advocate [one's] cause but also to select 
     what [one] believe[s] to be the most effective means of doing 
     so.'' In Meyer, the Court emphasized that legislative 
     restrictions on political advocacy or advocacy of the passage 
     or defeat of legislation are ``wholly at odds with the 
     guarantees of the First Amendment.''
       Where the government seeks to regulate such First Amendment 
     protected activity, the regulations must survive exacting 
     scrutiny. To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must 
     establish: (a) a compelling governmental interest sufficient 
     to override the burden on individual rights; (b) a 
     substantial correlation between the regulation and the 
     furtherance of that interest; and (c) that the least drastic 
     means to achieve its goal have been employed.
       A compelling governmental interest cannot be established on 
     the basis of conjecture. There must be a factual record to 
     sustain the government's assertion that burdens on 
     fundamental rights are warranted. Here, there is little if 
     any record to support the contention that grassroots lobbying 
     needs to be regulated. Without this record, the government 
     will be unable to sustain its assertion that grassroots 
     lobbying should be regulated.
       The grassroots lobbying provision is troubling for other 
     reasons as well. First, the provision seems to assume 
     Americans can be easily manipulated by advocacy organizations 
     to take actions that do not reflect their own interests. To 
     the contrary, Americans are highly independent and capable of 
     making their own judgment. Whether or not they were informed 
     of an issue through a grassroots campaign is irrelevant--
     their action in contacting their representative is based on 
     their own belief in the importance of matters before 
     Congress.
       Second, it appears groups such as the ACLU may end up 
     having to report their activities because of the grassroots 
     lobbying provisions. A ``grassroots lobbying firm'' means a 
     person or entity that is retained by one or more clients to 
     engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on 
     behalf of such clients and receives income of, or spends or 
     agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such 
     efforts in any quarterly period. ``Client'' under existing 
     law includes the organization that employs an in-house staff 
     person or person who lobbies. If, for example, the ACLU hires 
     an individual to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of 
     the ACLU and pays that individual for her efforts in amounts 
     exceeding $25,000, it appears that individual could be 
     considered a grassroots lobbying firm, and have to register 
     and report as such. The fact the ACLU employs that individual 
     appears to be irrelevant to this provision. Unless this is 
     the type of activity that the provision is intended to reach, 
     there is no substantial correlation between the regulation 
     and the furtherance of the government's alleged interest in 
     regulating that activity.
       Groups such as the ACLU could also be affected because of 
     the definitions of ``paid efforts to stimulate grassroots 
     lobbying'' employed in Section 220. For example, the ACLU 
     maintains a list of activists who have signed up to be 
     notified about pending issues in Congress. Not all of those 
     activists are ``dues paying'' members who would be exempt 
     from consideration for ``paid efforts to stimulate grassroots 
     lobbying.'' Additionally, since there are 500 or more such 
     individuals, sending out an action alert to ACLU activists 
     could be deemed ``paid'' communication and subject to 
     registration and quarterly reporting.
       Because the grassroots lobbying provision is unsupported by 
     any record of corruption, and because the provision is not 
     narrowly tailored to achieve the government's asserted 
     interest, the provision is constitutionally suspect. 
     Requiring groups or individuals to report First Amendment 
     activity to the government is antithetical to the values 
     enshrined in our Constitution. If our government is truly one 
     ``of the people, for the people, and by the people,'' then 
     the people must be able to disseminate information, contact 
     their representatives, and encourage others to do so as well.
           Sincerely,
     Caroline Fredrickson,
       Director, Washington Legislative Office.
     Marvin Johnson,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____

                                            National Right to Life


                                              Committee, Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2007.
     Re Support Bennett Amendment No. 20 to avoid radical effects 
         of Section 220 of S. 1 (substitute amendment)

       Dear Senator: The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) 
     urges you to support the Bennett Amendment (No. 20), which 
     would strike Section 220 from the pending substitute 
     amendment to S. 1. Because of the chilling effect that 
     Section 220 could have on grassroots activism, NRLC may 
     include any roll call on the Bennett Amendment in our 
     scorecard of key votes for the 110th Congress.
       While supporters of Section 220 say that it would only 
     require ``disclosure'' of certain big-dollar lobbying 
     campaigns, the actual language of Section 220 would place 
     unprecedented burdens on issue-oriented citizen groups from 
     coast to coast that seek to motivate the public on matters of 
     federal policy. Any local activist who runs afoul of the new 
     requirements could be subjected to crushing civil penalties, 
     raised from $50,000 to $200,000 per infraction by adoption of 
     the Vitter Amendment No. 10 on January 12, and even to 
     intimidation by threat of the new criminal penalty of up to 
     10 years in prison created by Section 223 of the substitute 
     bill. The net effect would be to chill activities that are 
     essential to the healthy functioning of a representative 
     system of government.
       The reach of Section 220 would be far more expansive and 
     drastic than has been acknowledged by any of the sponsors or 
     advocacy-group backers of the provision. Some of the sweeping 
     effects are clearly intended (if not acknowledged) by the 
     provision's backers, but others may be the result of poor 
     draftsmanship or poor understanding of the way Section 220 
     would alter the structure of the existing Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act (2 U.S.C. Chapter 26).


                        CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE

       Before discussing the specific regulatory burdens that 
     would be imposed by Section 220, it is necessary to describe 
     the pernicious premise that is at the heart of the proposal: 
     Section 220 defines the act of a constituent contacting a 
     member of Congress as an act of ``lobbying,'' specifically 
     ``grassroots lobbying.'' In our view, petitioning elected 
     representatives is at the very heart of representative 
     democracy, is granted the highest degree of protection by the 
     First Amendment, and ought to be encouraged rather than 
     restricted and regulated. Yet Section 220 would enact into 
     law a mind-set that encouraging citizens to contact their 
     federal representatives is a type of influence-peddling, 
     inherently suspect, and the proper subject for scrutiny 
     regarding exactly how citizens were motivated to exercise 
     their constitutional right to petition.
       (We refer here to definition 17 in Section 220: 
     ``GRASSROOTS LOBBYING. The term `grassroots lobbying' means 
     the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to 
     communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials 
     or to encourage other members of the general public to do the 
     same.'' Note that this definition is so expansive that it 
     covers not only verbal and written communications sent by a 
     constituent to an officeholder, but also such activities as 
     holding placards at public demonstrations, submitting letters 
     for publication in local newspapers, or offering comments on 
     an officeholder's position on a call-in radio program.)
       Bradley Smith, former chairman of FEC, and Stephen 
     Hoersting, former Republican Senatorial Committee general 
     counsel, last year explained in detail why ``grassroots 
     lobbying'' should be protected from Congressional scrutiny 
     and regulation (see ``Let the

[[Page S650]]

     Grassroots `Lobbying' Grow,'' www.nationalreview.com/comment/
smith_hoersting_200602210809.asp), They wrote:
       `` `Grassroots lobbying' is merely encouragement of average 
     citizens to contact their representatives about issues of 
     public concern. It is not `lobbying' at all, as that phrase 
     is normally used outside the beltway, meaning paid, full-time 
     advocates of special interests meeting in person with members 
     of Congress away from the public eye. . . . Contact between 
     ordinary citizens and members of Congress, which is what 
     `grassroots lobbying' seeks to bring about, is the antithesis 
     of the `lobbying' at the heart of the Abramoff scandals. It 
     is ordinary citizens expressing themselves. That they are 
     `stimulated' to do so by `grassroots lobbying activities' is 
     irrelevant. These are still individual citizens motivated to 
     express themselves to members of Congress.''
       We agree. We urge you to support the Bennett Amendment in 
     order to reject the root concept that communications from 
     constituents are a form of ``lobbying,'' or that what 
     motivated a constituent is a proper subject for governmental 
     inquiry--be it a mailing from an advocacy group, or a 
     newspaper editorial, or a franked newsletter, or a 
     conversation at a local gym.


            SECTION 220--TWO DISTINCT WEBS OF NEW REGULATION

       Beyond the fundamental constitutional objection, it is 
     vital that you understand the actual legal effects of Section 
     220, which have been grossly understated (and are probably 
     poorly understood) by many of the provision's supporters.
       Section 220 would create many legal hazards for grassroots-
     based, actvist-staffed organizations throughout the country.
       Section 220 creates two separate and distinct new webs of 
     regulation. (These have been confused or conflated in some 
     materials circulated by both supporters and opponents of the 
     provision.) First, Section 220 greatly expands the universe 
     of persons who must register and file detailed reports 
     (henceforth, quarterly) as federal ``lobbyists,'' because 
     Section 220 redefines ``lobbying activities'' to include 
     ``paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'' This 
     would include many employees of state and local right-to-
     life organizations who are paid only small amounts and who 
     seldom engage in true lobbying of members of Congress or 
     their staffs. Second, Section 220 creates a new category, 
     the ``grassroots lobbying firm,'' defined so broadly that 
     even a single individual, employed by a state or local 
     advocacy group and paid a nominal amount, could be forced 
     to register as a ``grassroots lobbying firm'' if the 
     organization purchased a single full-page ad in a 
     newspaper on a federal legislative issue.
       The primary impact of these regulations would not fall 
     primarily on well-heeled ``K Street'' lobbyists or on 
     professional public relations firms, which supporters of 
     Section 220 claim are their targets. Most professional 
     Washington lobbying firms and their vendors are well-equipped 
     to deal with complex regulations--they can hire extra 
     lawyers, bookkeepers, and support staff, and bill their 
     clients for the additional expenses required to keep track of 
     their centralized ``grassroots lobbying activities.''
       The real burdens of Section 220 would fall on the thousands 
     of low-paid employees of thousands of issue-oriented citizen 
     groups across the land, of every ideological stripe, who try 
     to motivate members of the general public to communicate with 
     members of the U.S. Senate and House regarding pending 
     legislation. If Section 220 is enacted, the activist will 
     learn that she must register with the federal government as a 
     ``lobbyist'' and file quarterly reports detailing her efforts 
     to stimulate ``grassroots lobbying,'' of any dollar amount, 
     if (l) she is paid any sort of salary, (2) spends more than 
     20 percent of her time on such grassroots activities, (3) 
     presents the motivating communications to more than 500 
     persons who are not paying members of the organization, and 
     (4) has communicated with a congressional office or Executive 
     Branch official more than once during a calendar quarter (for 
     example, by sending an e-mail or making a phone call advising 
     a Senate office of the organization's position on a pending 
     vote).


    REGISTRATION/REPORTING BY ``GRASSROOTS LOBBYISTS'' WHO SPEND $1

       Some defenders of Section 220 say that these requirements 
     would apply only if the activist is an employee of an 
     organization that spends more than $10,000 in a calendar 
     quarter on such ``grassroots lobbying activity.'' 
     Regrettably, they are mistaken--that may have been the 
     intent, but it is not the language of Section 220. There is 
     indeed a $10,000 minimum (per three-month period) threshold 
     in the bill (which amends the $24,500 semi-annual threshold 
     that applies under the current Lobbying Disclosure Act), but 
     Section 220(b)(1) explicitly removes ``paid efforts to 
     stimulate grassroots lobbying'' from the scope of this 
     exemption. In other words, Section 220 creates an exception 
     to the exemption. This means that under Section 220, even $1 
     per quarter spent to ``stimulate'' citizens to communicate 
     with their representatives in Congress triggers the 
     registration and reporting requirement, for an individual who 
     meets the other four numbered criteria in our previous 
     paragraph. (Note: The $10,000 minimum discussed here applies 
     to registration as a ``lobbyist,'' and should not be confused 
     with the $25,000 threshold that applies to the ``grassroots 
     lobbying firm,'' the new entity created by Section 220, which 
     is discussed on the final two pages of this letter.)
       Some defenders of Section 220 also claim that the 
     registration requirement would apply only to individuals or 
     firms that are already required to register because they 
     engage in extensive direct lobbying with members of Congress 
     or congressional staff. In this, too, they are mistaken: 
     Section 220(a)(1) explicitly adds ``paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying'' to the list of activities that trigger 
     the federal registration and reporting requirement Therefore, 
     if a local issue-activist group has an employee who has spent 
     any money to encourage more than 500 private citizens (not 
     members of the organization) to write letters to their 
     representatives, has spent 20% of his time on such activity, 
     and has made as few as two contacts to congressional or 
     Executive Branch offices urging action on a pending issue, 
     that employee would be trapped by the registration and 
     reporting requirements.
       Defenders of Section 220 emphasize that communications to 
     members of an organization (for example, members of a labor 
     union) are exempt. But the First Amendment does not merely 
     guarantee the right to communicate with those who pay dues 
     for the privilege of receiving such communications. Even a 
     small single-issue organization may have a large e-mail alert 
     list (for example), made up of individuals who fall outside 
     of the Section 220 definition of ``membership'' because they 
     do not make contributions, but nevertheless have a strong 
     desire to be kept informed of congressional legislative 
     activities. In addition, the group may at times feel the need 
     to reach out to the general public--for example, by 
     purchasing an ad in a daily newspaper--to urge citizens to 
     speak out on a timely issue.


              ``GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM'' REGULATION WEB

       The second and distinct web of regulation created by 
     Section 220 applies to a new category of regulated entity, 
     the so-called ``grassroots lobbying firm.'' Defenders of 
     Section 220 talk about this provision in ``terms of so-called 
     Astroturf'' operations, as if it applied to professional 
     advertising or public relations firms, but the actual 
     language is far more sweeping. Section 220 defines a 
     ``grassroots lobbying firm'' as ``a person or entity'' 
     [emphasis added] who is paid, by a ``client,'' to stimulate 
     ``grassroots lobbying'' (as defined in Section 220), and who 
     receives, spends, or agrees to spend $25,000 or more in a 
     quarter for such activities. ``Client'' is defined in the 
     existing law to include an organization that employs an in-
     house staff person who engages in ``lobbying activities,'' a 
     definition that Section 220 would expand to include 
     activities to motivate grassroots contacts to members of 
     Congress.
       (It is important to note that this $25,000-per-quarter 
     threshold applies only to the new ``grassroots lobbying 
     firm'' provision of Section 220, and not to the separate 
     requirement that one engaged in ``paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying'' must register and report as a 
     ``lobbyist.'' As we have already explained, the lobbyist 
     registration requirement is not confined by any dollar 
     threshold with respect to ``paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying.''
       Thus, under Section 220, the executive director (for 
     example) of a state or local affiliate of National Right to 
     Life, even if she is part-time and paid only a nominal 
     amount, and even if she seldom or never interacts directly 
     with congressional offices, could be forced to register as 
     a federal ``grassroots lobbying firm'' and file detailed 
     reports on a quarterly basis, if she on behalf of the 
     organization (the ``client'') spends more than $25,000/
     quarter on encouraging the general public to contact their 
     federal elected representatives. Since a single full-page 
     ad in a major metro newspaper typically costs more than 
     $25,000, many part-time citizen activists would find 
     themselves legally defined as ``grassroots lobbying 
     firms.'' Note that in this scenario, it is not the 
     organization that Section 220 defines as a ``grassroots 
     lobbying firm,'' but the individual staff person as 
     described. Also, note that this new regulation of 
     ``grassroots lobbying firm(s)'' is not constrained by the 
     language that limits the existing Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     requirement to register as a ``lobbyist'' to persons who 
     make at least two direct ``lobbying contacts'' and who 
     spend more than 20% of their paid time on lobbying 
     activities during a reporting period. Those limitations 
     apply only to the Act's definition of ``lobbyist,'' and 
     not to the new language of Section 220 defining 
     ``grassroots lobbying firm.''
       The ``grassroots lobbying firm'' provision of Section 220 
     has one additional side effect which has not been understood, 
     or at least has not been acknowledged, by its supporters: The 
     $25,000 threshold is an aggregate figure for a vendor, not a 
     threshold that applies to each issue-oriented client 
     organization. We illustrate the implications by the following 
     scenario: In Anytown, 15 citizen-activist groups, none of 
     which has any paid staff or engages in any direct contacts 
     with members of Congress or congressional staff, all hire the 
     same vendor to mail to various lists of citizens urging them 
     to communicate with their elected representatives on 
     different timely issues. No organization pays more than 
     $2,000 for the use of any list, but the aggregate amount 
     collected by the vendor for mailings to all lists exceeds 
     $25,000 in a three-month period. Under Section 220, this 
     local vendor would be required to register as

[[Page S651]]

     a ``grassroots lobbying firm'' and to report the details of 
     his mailing activities for all 15 of his ``clients,'' even a 
     group that merely paid $50 for the use of a list.


                               CONCLUSION

       In summary, Section 220 is a poorly drafted provision. If 
     enacted, it will disrupt the constitutionally protected 
     activities of thousands of issue-oriented citizen groups from 
     coast to coast, chill free speech by citizen activists on the 
     issues of the day, and become a textbook example of the Law 
     of Unintended Consequences.
       We urge you to prevent these consequences by supporting the 
     Bennett Amendment No. 20, which will strike Section 220 from 
     the substitute to S. 1. Thank you for your consideration of 
     our strong views on this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Douglas Johnson,
       NRLC Legislative Director.
     Susan Muskett, J.D.,
       Congressional Liaison.
                                  ____

                                                 January 16, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
      Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: As 
     leaders of advocacy organizations active on a broad variety 
     of issues, we write to express our strong concerns regarding 
     certain proposals that are being advanced that would 
     establish, for the first time, congressional oversight of 
     grassroots activity that is intended to encourage members of 
     the public to communicate with Members of Congress about 
     pending legislative matters--so-called ``grassroots 
     lobbying.''
       We take no issue with proposals that may be legitimate 
     responses to allegations of certain unethical actions by 
     Members of Congress, congressional staff and lobbyists. But 
     nothing in those allegations provide any justification 
     whatsoever for the notion that incumbent Members of Congress 
     should seize authority to scrutinize and regulate the 
     constitutionally protected efforts of groups such as ours to 
     alert citizens regarding legislative developments in Congress 
     and to encourage them to communicate their views to their 
     elected representatives. That citizens are ``stimulated'' to 
     contact their representatives by so-called ``grassroots 
     lobbying activities'' is irrelevant. Newspaper editorials, 
     op-eds, grassroots advertisements and e-mail alerts are all 
     ways to influence people to contact their elected 
     representatives on an issue. Just as it would be 
     unconstitutional to monitor the press because of their 
     influence over their readership, the First Amendment also 
     protects the right of the people to ``petition the government 
     for a redress of grievances.'' To monitor motivation as to 
     why a citizen would contact Members on an issue is attacking 
     that First Amendment right.
       A prominent example of the type of provisions that we 
     strongly oppose are found in the Legislative Transparency and 
     Accountability Act of 2007 (S.l). We strongly oppose Section 
     220 of this legislation and any other proposals along these 
     lines.
       Section 220 requires ``grassroots lobbying firms'' to 
     report to Congress within 45 days of agreeing to provide 
     services related to grass roots lobbying (including filing of 
     quarterly reports listing disbursements made in connection 
     with such activities).
       Section 220 exempts communications of an organization to 
     its members from direct application of these requirements, 
     but the bill ensures that all private contractors and vendors 
     which we retain to help communicate with the general public, 
     in order to encourage these citizens to contact their elected 
     representatives in Congress, would be subject to the 
     burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
     Moreover, since these activities must be reported 
     according to when they are arranged (even before 
     communications to the public actually occur), they would 
     in effect require that we provide our opposition on any 
     given issue with detailed information about the scope and 
     location of our planned grassroots efforts.
       Reasoned attempts to address the concerns emerging from 
     Congressional scandals should not be used as an excuse for 
     incumbent officer-holders to encroach upon our most basic 
     Constitutional liberties. Therefore, we urge you to strongly 
     oppose any legislative proposals that would establish federal 
     oversight over grassroots lobbying activities. We fully 
     support Amendment 20 to S. 1 filed by Senator Robert Bennett 
     which would strike the section relating to disclosure of paid 
     efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.
           Respectfully,
     Family Research Council
     Focus on the Family
     Family Protection Lobby
     The Family Action Council of Tennessee
     American Family Association
     Illinois Family Institute
     The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin
     Free Market Foundation
     Christian Civic League of Maine
     The Center for Arizona Policy
     Corner Institute of Idaho
     South Dakota Family Policy Council
     Georgia Family Council
     The Minnesota Family Council
     Mississippi Center for Public Policy
     Men's Health Network
     Family Leader Network
     National Council for Adoption
     Institute on Religion and Public Policy
     Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
     American Association of Christian Schools
     National Rifle Association
     Coalition for Marriage and Family
     Judicial Action Group
     Coalitions for America
     American Shareholders Association
     Americans for Tax Reform
     American Values
     Catholic Exchange
     Traditional Values Coalition
     Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
     Family Resource Network/Teen Pact
     Grassfire.org Alliance
     Eagle Forum
     Concerned Women for America
     Christian Coalition of America
     Fidelis
     Citizens for Community Values
     Population Research Institute
     Home School Legal Defense Association
     Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
     Advance USA
     Americans United for Life
     Massachusetts Family Institute

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to make a very few 
comments in response to the ranking member's comments, and then I know 
the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to speak on another matter, so 
I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I know that Senator Lieberman is 
going to speak on the specific provisions of section 220 in the base 
bill, S.1, at a later time. However, I would like to share with this 
body what I understand to be the facts. If I understand correctly what 
is attempted in the underlying bill, the goal is to compel disclosure, 
registration and reporting for those companies, individuals or 
organizations that say, We have a cause, this is the cause; we want to 
establish a grassroots lobbying organization. They go and hire 
organizations to get going and spent more than 25,000 a quarter. They 
say go ahead and organize a movement, but nobody ever knows who they 
are or who funds them. This is called astroturf lobbying. Some people 
refer these groups as ``sham'' or ``front'' organizations. I am not 
going to say they necessarily are, but they have been referred to as 
such. They seek to influence legislation through mass media, using 
campaign and issue ads, letters, phone calls, think-tank public policy 
papers, and public polls.
  The problem is, these organizations are hired guns funded by 
undisclosed special interest corporations and public policy firms. They 
conduct grassroots organization lobbying efforts which are often very 
misleading or in some cases, deceptive. For example, an oil company 
hires a sham organization to promote the benefits of alternative fuels 
to big oil, or a cigarette company hires a front group to lobby for 
smoke-free environment--or whatever the popular cause may be. They go 
out to organize, make lobby contacts, and conduct other lobby 
activities on specific issues. Unlike genuine grassroots groups that 
tend to be money poor but people rich, astroturf campaigns are 
typically people poor and money rich.
  Section 220 of the base bill contains the provisions on disclosure of 
paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. I am the first one to 
say these provisions could be more clearly written. Nonetheless, the 
section's goal is to close the loophole in current law that allows 
these groups to engage in lobbying contacts without any public 
disclosure or reporting whatsoever--like the paid lobbying contacts and 
efforts of Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.
  The bill recognizes this increased type of lobbying--paid efforts to 
stimulate grassroots lobbying--and creates new disclosure and reporting 
rules for such activities. It makes clear that efforts by an 
organization to contact its own members as part of a grassroots 
lobbying campaign are not covered and are unaffected by these 
provisions unless some outside group paid the organization to do so.
  The bill also requires a $50,000 quarterly threshold as a 
precondition of registration. This means that small and truly local 
efforts are not covered.
  I do not agree with the comments made by the ranking member about 
this section 220. Non-profits will continue to be able to lobby under 
current

[[Page S652]]

tax law that requires threshold disclosure and reporting. However, 
private sector groups and their paid lobbyists are not currently 
required to disclose, register or report and therefore would be under 
section 220. So this is the differentiation between the two groups.
  The provisions would create a balanced playing field by opposing a 
sham grassroots lobbying operation while protecting legitimate 
grassroots lobbying organizations. This in essence is the purpose. If 
it does survive consideration here, we will take another look at it in 
conference with respect to narrow definitions, registration and the 
reporting trigger thresholds. I do believe if somebody goes out and 
creates one of these groups, pours a lot of money into it and then 
hires people for grassroots lobbying purposes, then this group should 
be required to disclose and report so the public knows exactly who the 
group is and who is financing the group. Is it an undisclosed oil 
company or is it really a legitimate Citizens for Alternative Fuels to 
Oil? I think that it is important to determine the credibility and 
legitimacy of these organizations involved in grassroots lobbying.
  I know the ACLU is opposed to it. The ACLU is a group that has been 
around for a long time. I don't see them being affected by this at all 
because they would be covered under this other section of the law. I 
offer these comments in the interests of the purpose of section 220 in 
this legislation, which I think is bona fide, helpful, and overdue. 
Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a question of my distinguished 
friend from Pennsylvania. It is my understanding he is going to speak 
next; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, my request is to speak for about 10 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. My only question was how long he is going to speak. I will 
come back after that time. I appreciate the Senator allowing me to ask 
that question.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, may I make a quick response to the 
Senator from California before we hear from the Senator from 
Pennsylvania? I will not take more than a minute or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. I simply want to make this point with respect to the 
threshold that causes people to come under the provisions of the bill. 
There is, indeed, a $10,000 minimum for a 3-month period threshold in 
the bill, but section 220(b)(1) explicitly removes ``paid efforts to 
stimulate grassroots lobbying'' from the scope of this exemption. In 
other words, $1 per quarter spent to stimulate citizens to communicate 
with their representatives in Congress triggers the registration and 
reporting requirement for an individual who meets the other four 
numbered criteria.
  I agree with the Senator from California. This is very badly drafted 
and needs an awful lot of work, which is why I think the best thing to 
do with it is simply strike it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                    New Foreign Surveillance Policy

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for yielding this 
time. I have sought recognition to express my approval--I am glad to 
see that the Attorney General of the United States, in telephone calls 
to Senator Leahy and myself and now in letters, has advised that there 
is a new procedure to have the requests for wiretaps on al-Qaida 
members submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. On 
December 16, the New York Times broke the story that there were 
wiretaps going on under a Presidential order without complying with the 
customary requirement that probable cause be established and submitted 
to the court, which would authorize the issuance of a warrant, to 
authorize the wiretap.
  On that day, Friday, we were in the final stages of floor debate on 
the PATRIOT Act, and the disclosure that morning that there were 
warrantless recordings going on was quite a shock and quite a problem, 
because I was managing that bill in my capacity as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I said on the floor at that time that there was a clear-cut violation 
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides that the 
Act is the exclusive way for having a wiretap for foreign intelligence 
surveillance. The President has sought to justify the surveillance 
under his article II inherent powers. That raises a complicated issue, 
which can only be determined by the courts by weighing the invasiveness 
of the wiretapping--invasiveness into privacy--contrasted with the 
importance of national security.
  Most of last year found this item as the No. 1 priority of the 
Judiciary Committee and my No. 1 priority as chairman. We had a series 
of hearings, four hearings. I introduced legislation to try to bring 
the program at that time under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act.
  The administration had refused to disclose the details of the program 
to the Judiciary Committee. They maintained that attitude consistently 
up until today. They finally did submit it, after a lot of pressure, to 
the Intelligence Committees--first a subcommittee of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, then when the House resisted only a 
subcommittee, it was finally submitted to the full committees--really 
it was only submitted when the time came for the confirmation of 
General Hayden for Director of the CIA.
  I have not been privy to what was disclosed to the Intelligence 
Committee, but based on my chairmanship of that committee during the 
104th Congress, I have some doubts as to the adequacy of the 
disclosure. I know when I was chairman, the chairman was supposed to be 
informed about those classified and secret programs, but that was in 
fact not the case.
  When the matter later moved into litigation and the Federal court in 
Detroit declared the surveillance program unconstitutional, and then 
the appeal was taken to the Sixth Circuit, I introduced substitute 
legislation--S. 4051 last year, and I've reintroduced it already this 
year--which would have provided for expedited review in the Federal 
courts and mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The bill also would 
have required individualized warrants for calls originating in the 
United States, because the administration had disclosed that, if there 
were changes made in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there 
could be a warrant for all outgoing calls but not incoming calls 
because there were so many.
  I am glad to see that we may now have all of that resolved. We are 
not sure. I want to know the details of this program.
  Senator Leahy has already spoken on the subject today and has put 
into the Record a letter that he and I received today from the Attorney 
General. The key parts are as follows:

       I am writing to inform you that on January 10, 2007, a 
     Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued 
     orders authorizing the Government to target for collection 
     international communications into or out of the United States 
     where there is probable cause to believe that one of the 
     communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an 
     associated terrorist organization. As a result of these 
     orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as 
     part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be 
     conducted subject to approval of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Court.

  That language says there will be probable cause established. I think 
we need to know more about the procedures for the determination of 
probable case, whether it is on individualized warrants or it is a 
group program. We will need to know more about the determination of an 
individual being an agent of al Qaeda, and we will need to know more 
about what is meant by an associated terrorist organization, to see 
that probable cause has been established under the customary standards.
  The letter from the Attorney General goes on to say:

       In the spring of 2005--well before the first press account 
     disclosing the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance 
     Program--the Administration began exploring options for 
     seeking such FISA Court approval.

  It would have been my hope that the Attorney General, in our 
oversight hearings, where he was called and asked about this program, 
would have made that disclosure. A lot of time and effort went into the 
Judiciary Committee hearings and went into the

[[Page S653]]

drafting of legislation. I personally met with the President last July 
11 and secured his agreement to submit this program to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court. For a variety of reasons, which I 
shall not detail now, that legislation did not move forward.
  Then, as I've noted, there was substitute legislation when the 
Federal court in Detroit declared the program unconstitutional and the 
matter came before the Sixth Circuit.
  The Attorney General's letter says, as is appropriate, that the 
program will have ``the speed and agility necessary to protect the 
Nation'' from terrorist attack--and that has always been a major 
concern: that we be protected, but that we be protected with an 
appropriate balance, so that there not be an intrusive wiretap without 
the customary court approval.
  The Attorney General had advised me that there would be a meeting 
today, which I am just informed has been canceled, but there needs to 
be oversight beyond what has been disclosed in this letter. But at 
least there is a very significant first step. It is regrettable that 
these steps were not taken a long time ago. I would like to have an 
explanation as to why it took from the spring of 2005, and at least 
from December 16, 2005, until now, when there has been such public 
furor and public concern.

  Further, the letter of the Attorney General says:

       Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has 
     determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance 
     Program when the current authorization expires.

  It would be my hope that the program is terminated now, since there 
is an alternative method which the Attorney General has announced. I do 
not know when the program will expire. They have it in place for 45-day 
periods. We do not know when the last one started, so we do not know 
when this one will end. But, with an alternative program in place, it 
ought to be terminated now--to have the regular procedures for the 
establishment of probable cause, to protect civil liberties. And, as 
the Attorney General says, to address concerns in taking care of the 
protection of the country.
  Again, Madam President, I thank my colleagues for yielding the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been in Government all my adult 
life. Until I came back here, all my jobs were part time, and I 
practiced law. I say as sincerely as I can to anyone within the sound 
of my voice, I am so disappointed in the conversation I had with my 
Republican counterpart, Senator McConnell, a few minutes ago. I was 
told that this ethics bill is not going to get the support of the 
Republicans. They are going to bring this bill down, defeat this bill.
  Why? Listen to this. Because they are not going to have a vote on 
line-item veto. I told the distinguished Republican leader yesterday 
that we were willing to give the Republicans a vote on this prior to 
the Easter recess--up-or-down vote. We would have their bill, our bill, 
two competing votes, with 60 vote margins.
  It is very clear what is going on with this bill. Keep in mind, Madam 
President, that we have had in Washington a culture of corruption. For 
the first time in 131 years, someone was indicted working in the White 
House. He is now in trial as we speak. The head of Government 
contracting appointed by the President, Mr. Safavian, is led from his 
office in handcuffs for sweetheart deals he had with Abramoff and 
others.
  The majority leader of the House of Representatives was convicted 
three times of ethics violations in the House within 1 year. And then, 
of course, he was indicted in Texas on more than one occasion.
  A House Member from California is in prison now as we speak for 
accepting more than $2 million in bribes.
  A Congressman now is awaiting trial.
  Staff members have been convicted of crimes from the House.
  Talk about a culture of corruption, the American people deserve 
ethics and lobbying reform. That is why I brought to the floor S. 1. It 
is very clear that the minority does not want a bill. They have tried a 
number of different things to defeat this bill, offered all kinds of 
amendments, thinking we would oppose them. We supported those 
amendments. The only one that was a little blip in the road was a 
DeMint amendment, but we thought it should be stronger rather than 
weaker, so we added tax provisions to that. That has now passed.
  Line-item veto has nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform--
nothing, zero. If the majority felt so strongly about line-item veto, 
which I am sure they do, I have agreed to give them a vote. This is a 
pretext. They could not kill the bill by offering amendments, thinking 
we would oppose them, so now they have come up with a new idea: We 
cannot do this because you will not give us a vote on a nongermane, 
nonrelevant amendment--line-item veto.
  Line-item veto has nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform. If 
the line-item veto is so important to the minority, why didn't the 
Republicans get a vote on it last year when they controlled this 
Chamber? This is very difficult to comprehend.
  The bill that is before the Senate was sponsored, for the first time 
in 30 years, by the two leaders. And then the substitute was sponsored 
by the two leaders. The two leaders agreed to bring this bill to the 
floor. Now they are going to bring down the bill that their leader 
cosponsored?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
majority leader if he would recount for us what happened 2 years ago 
when we faced passage of an ethics reform bill, with an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote, when the Republicans were in control of the House and 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. They would not take it to conference. We never got it done.
  Madam President, this bill is very strong. It is something the 
American people want. I say to my distinguished counterpart, and all 
the minority Senators, they are going to vote against cloture on this 
bill? We hear people say, in passing, here: Well, that is a 30-second 
spot. Voting against cloture on this is not a 30-second spot. It is a 
30-minute spot.
  This bill prohibits lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers and 
their staffs. It prohibits lobbyists from paying for trips or taking 
part in privately funded congressional travel. It requires public 
disclosure of earmarks. It slows the revolving door by extending to 2 
years the ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress.
  It makes pay-to-play schemes such as the K Street Project a violation 
of Senate rules. It makes lobbying more transparent by doubling the 
frequency of reporting and requiring a searchable electronic database.
  It would require for the first time the disclosure of shadowy 
business coalitions that engage in so-called Astroturf lobbying 
campaigns. These big companies pay these people to come out and do 
grassroots stuff. You never know who is paying for it. Under this bill 
you would.

  But even though we have under S. 1, as we introduced it, a lot of 
good things, it is even stronger because we offered a substitute 
amendment to make it even stronger. There are new protections to 
prevent dead-of-night additions to conference reports. We added new 
rules to say Members may not engage in job negotiations with the very 
industries they regulate.
  There is fuller discloser by lobbyists. We ensure proper evaluation 
of tickets to sporting events. We make sure that Senate gift and travel 
rules are enforceable against lobbyists. And we toughen criminal 
penalties for corruption violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  Since that was offered by me and the distinguished Republican leader, 
we have had a debate in the Senate that has strengthened the bill even 
more.
  The Senate has adopted other amendments on a bipartisan basis: 
Senator Kerry's amendment to strip pensions from Members convicted of 
corruption; Senator Salazar's amendment to ensure public access to 
committee proceedings; and two amendments by Senator Vitter to 
strengthen enforcement of ethics rules. And I might add, there are 
other amendments out there waiting to be voted on if, in fact, cloture 
were invoked on the substitute.
  Finally, we voted overwhelmingly to invoke cloture on an amendment to 
prevent the things that we did before

[[Page S654]]

with airplanes. It strengthens the gift ban even further.
  The underlying bill generally prohibits gifts from lobbyists. The 
amendment I offered broadens the gift ban to prevent gifts from 
companies and other entities that even hire or retain a lobbyist.
  We did an excellent job, I repeat, on the travel. It is common sense. 
It broadens the provision by generally prohibiting congressional travel 
paid for by companies and other entities who hire or retain a lobbyist.
  The amendment provides exceptions for 1-day participation at events--
speech, conference, convention--and for de minimis lobbyist 
involvement. It requires advanced approval by the Ethics Committee for 
all privately funded travel, pursuant to guidelines issued by the 
committee.
  Madam President, I believe we have done yeoman's work. I think it is 
so unfortunate that I have been told that the minority would not 
support cloture. We will find out. We have a vote scheduled for 12:38 
tonight. And if the minority desires, we will certainly agree to an 
earlier vote. But I have been told we will not get the additional 16 
votes required. We need 66 votes on this--66 votes on this.
  But I want the world to know that this bill is being brought down not 
on a matter of principle because there is no one in the Senate I have 
more respect and admiration for than the Senator from New Hampshire, 
Senator Judd Gregg. He is a wonderful man, a fine person, and he 
believes in this line-item veto. I understand that. But I have told the 
Republican leader that my friend from New Hampshire or whoever else is 
interested in this issue can have a full debate on it. We will give 
them time to do it.
  But this is not the place. This is not the place. This has nothing to 
do--we are going to vote. If cloture were invoked, we would vote on I 
think it is 16 germane amendments. Those are germane. This is not 
germane. It falls. This has nothing to do with ethics and lobbying 
reform.
  So I would hope that there would be another view taken of this. This 
bill is being brought down because people do not want to comply with 
ethics and lobbying reform. That is what it is all about. All the rest 
is game playing.
  This is a tough bill. It would drastically change the way we do 
business in Washington for the better. The American public deserves 
this. I think they are going to demand this. And I think it is a sad 
day for the American people that this bill is going to be brought down. 
Because it will. We can only supply 50 votes. That is all we have. And 
we need 66.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, you are new to the Senate and, 
therefore, you were not here during this debate last year. But all this 
sounds quite familiar.
  I remember last year we had this very bill on the floor, and our 
colleagues on the other side were voting against cloture on this very 
bill last year for the very same reason that we will now vote against 
cloture on the bill this year, in order to ensure that more amendments 
are voted upon.
  How many times have we heard the distinguished majority leader and 
the distinguished majority whip remind us that the Senate is not the 
House. One of the frustrations of being in the majority here is that 
you have to give the minority votes in order to advance legislation.
  No one seriously believes--no one--that Republicans do not want to 
pass this legislation. That is not credible, I would say to my good 
friend on the other side of the aisle. We passed it 90 to 8 last year 
when my party was in the majority. So no amount of spin is going to 
convince anyone that the Republicans do not want to pass this bill. We 
do. We want to pass it after a fair process. And having nongermane 
amendments on legislation in the Senate is about as common as the Sun 
coming up every 24 hours.
  Now, we have been working, in fact, in a bipartisan fashion on this 
legislation. Our two managers, Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein, 
have been working their way through this. We would like to finish the 
bill. We would like to finish it this week.
  With respect to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, he is on the 
floor and would be glad to describe his amendment and how he believes 
that it is certainly related to this legislation. In fact, his 
amendment has been pending, since last Wednesday. A full week in the 
Senate, he has been waiting to get a vote.
  I do not believe that cloture is necessary on this bill, and I am 
prepared to enter into a unanimous consent agreement which will limit 
the number of amendments and move us toward completion of the bill. We 
are not in favor of having an unlimited amount of amendments but a 
reasonable number. We have had 10 rollcall votes on the bill to this 
point, not an incredible number. And allowing us to process the 
remaining amendments is something that simply the minority frequently 
insists on in the Senate.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Republican leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am sorry, I did not yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a question from the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I did not yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon. I thought you did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire for a 
question.
  Mr. GREGG. So I can understand the parliamentary situation, I did 
offer this amendment last Wednesday. It does deal with earmarks. We 
have, as I understand it, spent 8 days of legislative time on this 
bill, of which almost 4 days have been consumed in a discussion of 
earmarks with the majority--not the majority but the plurality of 
amendments that we have actually voted on dealing with earmarks.
  Now, in that context, I guess my question would be this: Why would 
you have to pull the bill down in order to take this amendment up 
later?
  Why in 15 minutes is it not possible to dispose of this amendment? It 
requires a supermajority because it is subject to a point of order. 
That saves the majority leader time wherever he wants to give us time 
later. Why do you have to pull a bill down to dispose of an amendment 
which is pretty relevant to what we have been discussing and you can do 
it in 15 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, there is no 
reason to take this bill down. In fact, Republicans hope the bill will 
not be taken down. What we are asking for is a vote on the Gregg 
amendment, not an unreasonable request to the Senate. We see on it 
virtually every piece of legislation week in and week out.
  Mr. GREGG. If I may ask further, this amendment, which I call a 
second look at waste, and some people have characterized it as enhanced 
rescission and others have called it the line-item veto, essentially 
allows the President to send up a package of rescissions, which I 
presume he would have taken out of omnibus bills, which I presume will 
be mostly earmarks for us to take a vote on. Isn't that something we 
have been discussing, this concept of earmarks, throughout the debate 
on this lobbying bill? And isn't this lobbying bill very much tied into 
the earmark issue? Isn't one of the real issues of lobbying the ability 
to establish earmarks by using influence?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, he is 
precisely correct. We have spent a substantial amount of time during 
debate on this bill discussing that very issue.
  Mr. GREGG. My final question would be, why don't we just vote on this 
amendment and get it over with? I presume the good leader from the 
Democratic Party, who is an exceptional leader and does a great job, 
will probably beat me on this amendment. It will be over in 15 minutes, 
because he has kept the votes to 15 minutes. And we can wrap this baby 
up.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend.
  I repeat, there is no good reason why we couldn't finish this bill 
tomorrow night. We are in the process now of surveying the number of 
amendments over here that need to be offered. Obviously,

[[Page S655]]

at the top of that list is the Gregg amendment. I would hope we could 
continue our discussion about how we might wrap this bill up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. The fallaciousness of this argument is astounding. Line-
item veto, the last time it left this body, it went to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. It was argued before the Supreme Court, dealing with the 
separation of powers doctrine. Fifteen minutes dealing with the very 
fiber of our society, our constitutional requirement of separation of 
powers, the legislative, the executive, and judicial branches of 
Government? This has implications with the separation of powers between 
the administration, the White House, and this Congress. To think we 
could do this in 15 minutes is not fair. I have said, if we want to 
have a debate on this, I am willing to do that, but not on this bill. 
This is an effort to bring down this bill. To say that nongermane 
amendments come just like the sun comes up every day is not reasonable 
or rational or sound.
  We have worked through this bill. We have worked on nongermane 
amendments, germane amendments, trying to work things out. We are now 
in a parliamentary structure where at 12:38 tonight, the Senate would 
dispose of the Reid amendment No. 4 and then vote to invoke cloture on 
the substitute amendment. At that time, if cloture were invoked, we 
would have a number of amendments. As I indicated, I think there are 16 
that would require votes because they are germane. My friend from New 
Hampshire can talk about having laid this amendment down 5 days ago or 
whenever he wants to say he laid it down. I don't know when he did. But 
the fact is, it is a nongermane amendment. It is not on this bill. It 
should not be on this bill.
  I have told the distinguished Republican leader, if they want some 
time to do this, we will set other things aside and do it. But this is 
an attempt to bring down this bill. To think that you could do this in 
15 minutes is absolutely unreasonable. Senator Levin, Senator Byrd, and 
others filed the case. It went before the U.S. Supreme Court the last 
time the line-item veto came before this body. Senator Byrd gave 10 
hours of speeches on the line-item veto here on the Senate floor.
  To think we could do this in 15 minutes--
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. I wasn't referring to 15 minutes as the time for debate. I 
was referring to it as the time that you allow votes on the floor and 
that the votes on the floor have been condensed and they are efficient. 
I respect the leader's accomplishing that in such short order. The 
debate has actually occurred. Senator Conrad gave a very impassioned 
response to the amendment. I understand Senator Carper has an amendment 
similar to my amendment. So, yes, it might take a little time to debate 
it, but I believe we could still deal with it promptly.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct, without my losing the floor, a 
question to the former chairman of the Budget Committee, someone who 
knows money as well as anybody in this body. Why couldn't we do this at 
a later time? I will give you whatever time you want that is 
reasonable. If you want to spend 2, 3, 4 days on this, I am happy to do 
that. We need time to prepare for this. This new in the session is not 
the time to do this. I wish to get this ethics bill done. I think I am 
being about as reasonable as I can be to set aside a significant amount 
of time prior to the Easter recess to give you an opportunity to do the 
line-item veto. And prior to that time, we could have a couple of 
hearings on this. I also recognize that we have a process in the Senate 
where bills can be amended. Sometimes they don't have to be relevant or 
germane. But I think you have to be in the ballpark.

  We have a CR coming up. We have the supplemental coming up which is 
money matters that you could file this on. I think people would have 
trouble objecting to it procedurally being improper. But right now, 
this isn't the time to do it. We are talking about doing something to 
make this body and the House better places to look at from an ethics 
and morality standpoint. I think your forcing us to go forward on this, 
which we are not going to do, makes it very difficult. I say this 
without pointing at anyone in particular, Democrat or Republican. 
Anyone who votes against cloture is creating some real political 
problems for himself. I think the American people think that something 
should be done with this culture of corruption we have back here.
  Mr. GREGG. Was that question directed at me initially?
  Mr. REID. Yes, it was. Why can't we do this at a later time when you 
have all the time you need? I have told the distinguished Republican 
leader, we will have your amendment. We will have Carper or something 
like that. I am not sure Carper is what we want to go with but 
something like that, where we can debate it, have a good debate on it, 
have you and Senator Conrad leading the debate. Others will want to 
join in, Senator Byrd and Senator Levin who were plaintiffs in the 
case. And we can move forward on it. Why couldn't we do that it way?
  Mr. GREGG. I guess I would ask the inversion of that question which 
is why not do it now? The amendment has been pending. It has been 
debated. People are fairly sophisticated about this amendment since it 
has been an issue that has been around here for awhile. I think it 
could be easily moved forward and discussed and voted on in a very 
prompt way.
  But independent of that, the reason why I think we should proceed is, 
I can't imagine bringing the bill down over an amendment like this 
which is not a partisan amendment. It has always been bipartisan and it 
has substance to it. It would seem appropriate. But independent of 
that, as you know, the ability to amend this vehicle gives me a vehicle 
with this amendment which, first off, the amendment is relevant. It may 
not be germane, but it is certainly relevant, considering the fact that 
it deals primarily with earmarks. But it gives me a vehicle with which 
to go to conference, and I want to at least get this thing to 
conference. Granted, the House will probably stand in disagreement, and 
you will control the conference. And you may decide that you are not 
going to take it and you will recede to the House. But at least I will 
have gotten to the conference with what I consider to be a fundamental 
reform, which goes to the issue of ethics, which is when the President 
sees something in a bill which he thinks inappropriate and it probably 
got in there through lobbying, he can send it back for another look by 
us. That is my primary concern.
  If the position of the Democratic leader is that you will give us 
time on the floor and if we succeed, we will have a commitment to go to 
conference, assuming we can conference--I mean, is the House going to 
pass a bill that we get into a position where it can get to conference 
somehow--that is something I would consider.
  Mr. REID. You are talking about if we do this at another, subsequent 
time?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, if I had a commitment that we would somehow get it to 
conference.
  Mr. REID. I am going to meet the distinguished Speaker of the House 
in 20 minutes. I will be happy to visit with her about that. I don't 
see why we couldn't have some assurance that it would go to conference. 
As you know, I believe in conferences. I think they should go forward. 
I would work very hard to get that done. I would say to my friend and 
those who can hear me that you can see through this a thousand miles. I 
am sure there are Senators who are overjoyed that this matter won't 
become law; I mean the ethics legislation. This matter, the line-item 
veto, is not a simple procedure, as my friend indicates. I repeat, it 
has very difficult constitutional problems, as indicated when the 
Supreme Court knocked it out last time. We can't debate this in a few 
minutes. I am willing to spend whatever time and give the Senator 
whatever assurances I can that we will try to move this on, move this 
beyond where we are here to conference.
  I say this: There are people who are Democrats who have some degree 
of confidence in being able to do something that is a line-item veto. 
Senator Carper has something. You might not like what he has done. I am 
not an expert on what he has done, but he is

[[Page S656]]

proud of it. Senator Conrad had some other ideas. We would agree on 
one. We would match it with yours. It would take us a few weeks to come 
up with that. But as I told the distinguished Republican leader, we 
will bring this up at a specific time, not a hit-or-miss time, prior to 
the recess we are going to have for Easter. I think that is reasonable.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a further question. If the 
Senator could in the same unanimous consent give me some sort of safe 
harbor that I will get to conference with my language, I think we might 
be on to something.
  Mr. REID. I can give you this assurance: I will do everything I can 
to get this to conference. I have not discussed this with the 
distinguished Speaker or anyone over there, but I will be happy to work 
to see that that is done. As the distinguished Senator knows, I will 
work to get it to conference, but as we have learned--and if we get it 
to conference, it will be a public conference. It will be one where 
Democrats will be there and Republicans will be there from both the 
House and the Senate. But as you know, we have more votes than you 
have, so I can't guarantee what would happen in conference. But I will 
do everything I can to get it to conference.
  Mr. GREGG. If the leader would yield further, I don't think this 
should be characterized as an amendment to bring down the bill. That is 
sort of a unilateral authority of the leader, of course. But it is 
certainly not my intention with this amendment, nor was it my intention 
with this amendment. I simply want to move this item along. I think 
this is an appropriate vehicle. But it sounds to me as if there might 
be a framework here for some progress. I will leave it to the good 
leaders to discuss this.
  Mr. REID. I want the record to reflect that the Senator from New 
Hampshire offered this--and I said this in my remarks--because he 
believes in it. This is something he believes in. It was not offered by 
the Senator from New Hampshire to bring down the bill. But that is what 
is happening. I am sorry to say there are other Senators who see this 
as an opportunity to bring down the bill. I would hope we can work 
something out on this. I want to move forward on this legislation. I 
want the Senator from New Hampshire to move forward on his legislation.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire knows, I don't agree with your 
legislation. But I will work, as I have indicated before to whoever is 
watching this Senate proceeding, to do everything I can to get a 
conference and have an open public conference. If we pass something 
here, of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to point out, I was on the 
floor when this item was discussed, when the Senator from New Hampshire 
offered his line-item veto amendment. I was also on the floor when 
Senator Conrad, who is our side's budget expert, came forward and 
debated it.
  There was a rather fulsome debate. I want to recount what Senator 
Conrad said about his belief about the amendment, that not only does it 
raise serious constitutional concerns, but it would allow the President 
to unilaterally block enacted funding, even if Congress rejects a 
proposed rescission. In addition, rather than strengthening fiscal 
discipline, the amendment could lead to more spending, not less. He 
pointed out how it could be used to eliminate entire new programs or 
improvements to benefits such as Medicare and Social Security. The 
President would have a year after a bill's enactment to propose a 
rescission. The President could package rescissions as he or she wishes 
and could combine rescissions that have been enacted in several 
different pieces of legislation. Senators would be forced to vote on 
the package with little opportunity for public notice or input and no 
opportunity to offer amendments, nor would there be any opportunity to 
filibuster proposed rescissions. The new power would make it much 
easier for a President to eliminate new Medicare or Social Security 
benefits to which he objects.
  Now, I agree very much with what the majority leader said. This is a 
very problematic amendment. It was debated on the floor of the Senate. 
It needs further refinement if anybody is going to move ahead with it. 
Clearly, it is a major amendment. Clearly, it is a real problem for our 
side. But for the minority to take down the bill over this amendment 
when the amendment is not germane to the bill, when I have tried very 
hard to keep matters that are not within the scope of the bill off the 
bill, including a matter I myself very much wanted to present, I think 
makes no sense.
  The minority leader pointed out that this bill passed before, 2 years 
ago, by a vote of 90 to 8. The whole point of this legislation is to 
show that the two sides can come together, be bipartisan, and enact a 
bill that will bring about ethics, lobbying, and earmark reform. And we 
have done that.
  As Senator Bennett, the ranking member, and I have sat on this floor, 
there has been ample time for Members to bring their amendments to the 
floor. I assure you that there has been a lot of time when we have just 
sat here in a quorum call. To allow this bill to be pulled down at this 
time is just a special matter of some kind of pique, when we know that 
the line-item veto amendment is extraordinarily problematic and 
deserves another venue, deserves more scrutiny, and should take some 
time before it is passed in any way, shape, or form.
  So I am fully in support of what the majority leader had to say. It 
makes no sense for the other side to take down this bill over it. I 
hope the proposal made by the majority leader will be accepted. I 
believe he will keep his word. I will help in any way I possibly can to 
see that that is, in fact, the case. But we are so close to getting 
this bill done, and it has some momentous things in it that represent a 
total change of the way these bodies operate, and they are important, 
significant, and timely. We ought to pass this bill. We ought to show 
the American people that we can work together, Republicans and 
Democrats, for a common purpose. So I just want to say that after a 
week and a half, I am profoundly disappointed that this has come about. 
I really thought we were going to be able to work together and pass a 
strong, bipartisan bill. And, in fact, most of the amendments have 
passed by huge majorities. I think there have only been two that have 
been relatively close.
  I urge the Republican side to reconsider. There are so many positive 
elements of this bill, and the American people will be so shortchanged 
if we cannot solve whatever problem there is between us and pass a bill 
that we voted on 90 to 8 some time ago, which has even been 
strengthened by some of the eight members who voted against it because 
they didn't think it was strong enough. This is a very strong measure.
  Those of us who will work in conference will work to smooth out any 
bumps. We will work in an open way, and no side will be shut out of the 
conference. I pledge it will be a collegial conference. This is our 
opportunity to set an agenda for the 110th Congress. Please, please, 
please, let us not reject this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have been working for a week and a half 
on this bill, S. 1, which is the highest priority of the Democratic 
majority in the new Congress because we believe, as it says, providing 
greater transparency in the legislative process is a starting point. 
Trying to restore public confidence in the way we work here is a 
starting point.
  I was heartened by the fact that this bill, as well as the substitute 
amendment and other amendments offered, has largely been bipartisan. 
Most of the debate has been bipartisan in nature. With few exceptions, 
the rollcalls have been bipartisan. It troubles me that we have reached 
this procedural impasse with the minority that, with the power given to 
it in the Senate, is threatening to bring down this bill. I am 
searching my mind to understand why they would want to bring down a 
bill that would clean up this culture of corruption in Washington and 
make substantial ethical changes.
  I have come to the conclusion that it has to do with indigestion. 
What I am referring to is this: For every decision in political life 
there is usually a good reason and a real reason. The good reason 
stated by the Republican side--or

[[Page S657]]

one they portray as a good reason--is they want to offer an amendment, 
which is characterized as a simple amendment. The bill is 55 pages 
long; the amendment is 24 pages long--almost half the size of the bill. 
It is not simple; it is very complex. It is on the legislative line-
item veto.
  Senator Reid, as majority leader, has already made a good-faith 
offering even before we came to the floor to the Republican minority 
and said that it is important and deserves its day on the Senate floor. 
We will guarantee you that we will debate this bill before the Easter 
recess, a like bill to be offered on the Democratic side. Let's bring 
it to a debate and a vote and see which, if either, prevails and take 
it from there. That was a good-faith offering.
  So the so-called good reason the Republicans are threatening to bring 
down the ethics bill just doesn't hold. We have already made the best 
offer that the minority could ever expect, and I know that having 
served in the minority for most of my time in the Senate.
  But there is also a real reason they are trying to insert line-item 
veto into this ethics bill. Sadly, I am afraid it is because as they 
sat together over lunch and read the provisions of this bill that will 
now likely pass, it caused indigestion among the Republican ranks and, 
as a consequence, they said we need a reason to stop this bill. Well, 
the reason turned out to be the legislative line-item veto.
  For those who follow what happens in Washington, it is my belief that 
somewhere in the White House the President has a veto pen. I don't know 
if it is one pen or many pens, but my guess is if it is one pen, most 
of us know already that there is a lot of ink left in this pen. For 
over the 6 years the President has been in the White House he has only 
vetoed one bill, and that was the stem cell research bill. He has never 
vetoed a spending bill in the entire 6 years that he has served as 
President.
  The suggestion by the Republicans now that this President has been 
longing for the chance to veto spending bills to show how fiscally 
conservative he is is not supported by the evidence. Time and again, 
this President signed appropriations bills without hesitation. Now we 
are being told if he just had this new power, he could bring spending 
under control. We know better. We know spending starts with the 
President's budget. We know that year after year, the President has 
taken us away from the surplus of the Clinton years into the deepest 
deficits in the history of the United States.
  Now we are being told the reason we cannot address ethics is we need 
to give the President a new power to veto spending bills for the first 
time in over 6 years. It doesn't really stand the test of scrutiny for 
us to consider this as a suggestion that is based in fact. It clearly 
is a reason to stop the ethics bill.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's not give 
up on this bipartisan effort and see this ethics bill go down. Yes, as 
the minority, you have the power to bring the bill down. Perhaps you 
believe the legislative line-item veto is the way to bring it down, but 
the American people are not going to buy it. They understand that 
strengthening disclosure on earmarks, eliminating dead-of-night 
provisions in conference reports, respecting minorities in conference 
committees, and ensuring proper valuation for gifts and meals and 
tickets that Members of Congress receive, closing the loophole and the 
revolving door as Members leave public life and go into the private 
sector, negotiating for lobbying jobs while still in Congress, 
enhancing the oversight of staff level job negotiations, enhancing 
fiscal transparency and lobbyist disclosure, lobbyist certification and 
compliance with gift rules--these are powerful. They are big changes 
and they are long overdue. We tried a year ago under Republican 
leadership and failed. I hope we don't fail again because the 
Republican minority wants to bring the bill down. I hope that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their 
position. I hope they will come back and join us in passing this 
bipartisan bill, making sure we do the people's work before we leave 
this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I don't want to get deep into this 
confrontation between the two leaders, but I say to my good friend from 
Illinois--and he is my good friend--that I was present at the 
Republican luncheon and there was no indigestion on this bill. I was 
asked by the Republican leader to present where we are on the floor to 
the members of the conference. By the way, our rule is that we don't 
discuss anything that happens in the Republican conference, so I am 
bending that rule. We are allowed to at least discuss what we 
personally say. So I will not disclose what anybody else said, but I 
will bend the rule a little to characterize it.
  I made the presentation as to where we were on the floor. There was 
no pushback whatsoever to the idea that we should pass this bill. There 
was no suggestion from any Member of the Republican conference that 
this bill should be taken down by some subterfuge.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has gone to the leader and made a 
request. The leader has responded to the request, feeling that the 
Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to a vote. We are where we are. 
The leaders will make their decision and have their discussion. I want 
to make the record as clear as I possibly can that any Republican who 
wants to use this as a subterfuge to take down the bill has not made 
his or her position known to me or to the leader. There is no 
suggestion of that at all of which I am aware.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. If I may follow up on the Senator's comments, it is 
obvious that the only person who can bring the bill down is the 
Democratic leader, if that is his choice. His choice appears to be 
based on the fact that he doesn't want to vote on the second look at 
waste amendment or enhanced rescission, which is tied into this bill.
  As I mentioned earlier, almost 30 percent of the amendments offered 
have dealt with earmarks, and half of the time of the debate here in 
the last 8 days has been on earmarks. So it is not as if this is 
something that is totally off track or truly outside the realm. This 
isn't a farm amendment on the lobbying bill; this is a lobbying 
amendment on the lobbying bill. It doesn't have germaneness because 
that is a very narrow test, but it is sure relevant and on point. It 
clearly deals with earmarks, and it also deals within appropriate 
actions from lobbyists who get earmarks into the bills and bury them in 
omnibus bills. That is the purpose.
  So the idea that this amendment is some sort of poison pill to the 
bill, it wasn't offered for that purpose and doesn't have that as its 
purpose. The Republican membership is ready to go forward and vote and 
is ready to either win or lose on this amendment.
  The language of the assistant Democratic leader is such that it 
sounds to me as if maybe they don't want the bill. Maybe they concluded 
they don't want the bill because they are the only ones talking about 
pulling the bill down. We are not talking about pulling the bill down. 
We are talking about getting a vote on a reasonable amendment. 
Independent of that, I have made an offer----
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? 
Maybe I am misinterpreting something. Will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I will.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, I thought what was said was that 
if the Senator from New Hampshire doesn't get a vote on his amendment, 
that his side will vote ``no'' on cloture. That was clearly what I 
heard. Am I wrong?
  Mr. GREGG. No, that is absolutely true. We should have a vote on our 
amendment, and as soon as we get a vote on our amendment, we can go to 
final passage. What is wrong with that?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will tell the Senator what is wrong 
with it.
  Mr. GREGG. I have not yielded the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The amendment is a very complicated amendment. It is 
impossible to understand, it is a lengthy amendment, and all of the 
reverberations. I contend and say that it is out of the scope of this 
bill, and we hope to keep the bill away from these kinds of contentious 
matters but pass those items within the scope of the bill. I thought 
there was general agreement with that position. I thought the

[[Page S658]]

Senator would recognize, based on the debate Senator Gregg had with 
Senator Conrad that there were real questions with the amendment that 
took further study. My impression was the Senator from New Hampshire 
was willing to go through that process at the time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I may reclaim my time, I have actually 
suggested to the Democratic leader and have taken him up on his 
suggestion as a way we can pursue this issue. I hope it will be done 
that way and that will resolve the matter. But I continue to hear, even 
after making that suggestion to the assistant leader, that we on our 
side of the aisle are attempting to bring the bill down. That is not a 
defensible position because the only people who can bring this bill 
down are on your side. You can take it off the floor. We can insist on 
our right to a vote, which we have every right to do, and it is 
reasonable to do, and especially reasonable to do in the context of 
this amendment which the Senator claims is complicated. It is not; it 
is fairly straightforward. In fact, it is much more straightforward and 
less complicated than the substitute amendment which has never gone 
through committee. It came here as a substitute amendment, drafted by 
the two leaders out of their offices. It is a very complex amendment--
in fact, so complex that I heard both sides of the leadership of the 
bill trying to explain certain sections of it and they had different 
explanations as to how it affected, for example, private citizens who 
happen to be married to Members of Congress. It is extremely complex 
language.
  My language at least has pretty much been vetted. It has been vetted 
all the way to the Supreme Court. It has gone through subcommittee, 
committee, it has been on the floor, debated, it has been debated 
again, it has been debated, and it was offered--in fact, my language 
was actually offered, in essence, by the Democratic Party as their 
substitute to the original line-item bill. In fact, the Senator from 
California supported the language when it was offered back in 1995. The 
Senator from California said:

       I believe that what a line-item veto essentially does is 
     encourage caution on the part of both the Chief Executive and 
     the legislative branch. I think the time has come for fiscal 
     discipline and, as I said, I sincerely believe the line-item 
     veto can help us achieve that goal.

  So this matter has been debated extensively on the floor. It has been 
voted on before. It is not a matter of first impression. It is a matter 
of considerable discussion, and it is not unique. It is related to this 
bill.
  The Senator from California used the term ``scope.'' Were the term 
``scope'' applied to postcloture standing of an amendment, this 
amendment would stand. But scope is not the operative language. 
Germaneness is, and germaneness is a much narrower test in postcloture, 
as we know it is extraordinarily difficult to get germaneness with any 
amendment that has any breadth to it. That is the reason it falls 
postcloture, and that is the reason why it should be taken up and voted 
on before cloture. But I am willing to push the vote off if we are 
guaranteed what the Democratic leader has suggested he will guarantee 
us. I won't put words in his mouth. I think what he said was: You will 
get the vote on your amendment; you will have an amendment from your 
side; they will both be subject to 60 votes, with time limit on debate, 
and it will go to conference.
  In that context, I think we can resolve this matter. But I take a 
little bit of umbrage at the idea that the other side of the aisle 
continues to characterize, even after that presentation had been worked 
out, our side of the aisle as trying to bring this bill down because 
the only person who has the right to bring this bill down right now is 
the majority leader. He controls the floor, he decides what is on the 
floor, and he can bring it down if he wishes.
  We do not wish to bring this bill down. We simply wish to get a vote 
on a reasonable amendment that won't survive germaneness postcloture; 
therefore, it has to be voted before cloture. It is an entirely 
reasonable position for the minority to take, especially since the 
amendment has been aggressively vetted by having been through this 
process so many times and actually has been pretty well defined by the 
Supreme Court as to what rights we have and what rights we don't have. 
That is why it is structured the way it is so it is constitutional.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending 
business at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Nelson amendment 
No. 71.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may proceed to speak on this overall 
issue that has been going back and forth for quite some time, I find 
myself somewhat amused. I don't quite understand what all the fuss is 
about. I have been through this before. I have been in the position of 
resisting an amendment such as this. I have been in the position of 
advocating an amendment such as this. Everybody is getting their press 
releases ready now to go out to put their spin on this issue. I wish to 
make a brief effort to try to put it into proper perspective.
  First, the idea or the suggestion that Republicans don't want to get 
this to conclusion is not credible because I managed this bill last 
year. We did it in a bipartisan way. As Senator McConnell has said, we 
got an overwhelming vote. I think it was 90 to 8, and it had tough 
provisions in there, including most of what is in this bill.
  Keep in mind, the underlying bill from last year was introduced by a 
bipartisan group, leaders on both sides, to begin this debate. Then 
there was a substitute laid down with some additional changes. Then we 
went forward with the amendments.
  I don't think it is fair to characterize this as one side or the 
other trying to stop a result. As a matter of fact, I thought our 
leaders were going to come together. It is OK, we are going to identify 
a number of amendments about which Members are serious, and we could 
have votes on them this afternoon and Thursday and finish up Thursday 
night or Friday. Now I guess there is a little bit of a manhood thing 
here where one side is going to show the other.
  Again, having been through this, when Senators do feel strongly about 
an issue, who have done the kind of work Senator Gregg has done, they 
are going to get a vote and they should get a vote. It is very simple. 
We could get a time agreement. Obviously, Senator Gregg would be 
prepared to come up with a reasonable time agreement. It is an 
important issue, but it certainly has been debated.
  I have been on all sides of this issue over the last 10 years or so, 
and we could have a vote on a few other amendments and complete our 
work and then await conference, by the way, which won't occur until 
some time in March or April because the House action which has been 
described basically as getting the job done was only a rules change in 
the House. They didn't do anything about lobby reform, and they are not 
going to do so until March. It is not that we are in a tear to catch up 
with the House. We are going to complete this in a reasonable time, and 
then we will wait, but we are going to get a result because there are 
things we need to do with ethics, lobbying reform.
  We can do it. We should do it. Some have gotten out of control. Now 
we are in a long process of self-flagellation without getting to 
cleaning up some things that need to be changed.
  With regard to the specifics of this amendment, I was involved in the 
process in the nineties when we passed the line-item veto. I was very 
much an advocate of it. I remember we had a bipartisan group that did 
that. I know Senator Byrd spoke vigorously against it. We got it done, 
and it went to the Supreme Court. Before it went to the Supreme Court, 
President Clinton used the line-item veto for the first time, and I was 
pretty shocked by the list he came up with. Then I thought: Well, maybe 
I was wrong after all to support this power of the President.
  This is not the same thing. This has been developed by Senator Gregg 
specifically addressing questions or problems of the line-item veto. I 
don't want to give Presidents, as they have had, by the way, and used 
for years, a summary rescission. This is a process, and I looked at it 
carefully.
  I had reservations about the draft we were talking about last year. I 
don't

[[Page S659]]

particularly like giving the President four bites of the apple. But I 
do like the fact that if we have some rescissions that go to reduce the 
deficit, Presidents can't put the same rescission project multiple 
times. He gets a shot at it, and then he can come up with a different 
list.
  I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I think it will help to bring 
spending under control. I do think it will allow the President, when 
there is a project that cannot be defended in the light of day, a 
chance to take it out, and then we have to vote on it. And, by the way, 
it is not in perpetuity. It is for 4 years. This President will have 
this authority for 2 years, and the next President will have this 
authority for 2 years. Is that the correct timing on this amendment?
  It has a sunset. We will see how it works. If we don't like it, if we 
don't agree with it, if we are embarrassed by the result, it will 
sunset, and then that will be the end of it unless we extend it. Is 
that a correct interpretation?

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, that is correct. This is 4 years, but this 
President probably won't get 2 years of it. He will probably get a year 
and a half.
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct. I don't know why we have all this huffing 
and puffing. Let's set it up, have some debate, have a vote, and let's 
move on. By the way, I believe Senator Reid has the majority, and as 
Senator Gregg pointed out, it takes 60 votes to get this through. I 
don't think it is going to happen.
  Senator Gregg has been willing to work out any and all kinds of 
agreements. I don't know how in the world the leader could keep a 
commitment to get it in conference out of whole cloth. Maybe he has 
some plan afoot.
  So far we have worked pretty good. I was a little embarrassed last 
week. We had one of our Members offer an amendment. I voted against it, 
but he won fair and square. And then we went through this exercise 
where we were going to strong-arm Members into switching their vote. 
Our Members said, wait a minute, including me. I was going to switch 
back the other way because I thought that a mistreatment. All he was 
trying to do on earmarks was put us in line or in sync with what the 
House had passed.
  I still don't particularly like that language. I think it is going to 
create some problems, but I thought it was a very good amendment. 
Basically, that put us in a holding pattern for the rest of the week or 
3 or 4 days.
  Hopefully the Democratic leadership will quit trying to fix blame and 
come up with a way we can complete this good work. The managers have 
been dealing with it and moving it along. I looked at the list of 
amendments. I don't see too many amendments that will be a problem in 
terms of time and debate and completing the work. Let's find a way to 
get this done, then await further House action, and then see if we can 
come up with a good product that is in the best interest of this 
institution and the American people. I believe this rescission package 
would help us get to that point.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Mississippi for 
that explanation. I simply want to add a little bit of history, which I 
did previously, to his comments. He said when he saw how President 
Clinton used the line-item veto he began to wonder if he hadn't, in 
fact, made a mistake by supporting it. I supported the line-item veto. 
When I saw how President Clinton used it, I was sure I had made a 
mistake. Here on the floor and in the debate with Senator Moynihan and 
Senator Byrd, I made the commitment that I would never support the 
line-item veto again because it was used in a way I had not 
anticipated. It was used in a way very different from the way State 
legislatures have dealt with the line-item vetoes that Governors had. 
That was my rationale for supporting it. I said: The Governors have it 
and it works; why shouldn't the President have it? That is because I 
didn't understand the way the Congress really works. So I said I will 
never support a line-item veto again.

  When the White House called me and said, We need your vote on this, I 
said, You won't get it. And then when I saw the details of what the 
Senator from New Hampshire has crafted, I realized, as he has pointed 
out, that it is crafted with the Supreme Court rescission in mind, with 
the history of the experience with President Clinton in mind, and I am 
now willing to support the enhanced rescission legislation the Senator 
from New Hampshire has proposed because, as he has said, this is not 
the line-item veto.
  Our friends in the press like a quick headline that they think 
everybody can understand, and they use the headline ``line-item veto,'' 
and then it sticks. In fact, that is not what it is, and a careful 
reading of the bill makes it clear that is not what it is. If, indeed, 
that were what it was, I would vote against it.
  But I am hoping the Democratic leader, the majority leader, can work 
out something which can give the opportunity for this to be brought 
forward, debated, and then voted on. I do note, as the Senator from New 
Hampshire has noted, that in order for it to pass, it would require 60 
votes. So if, indeed, there are 41 votes against it, the logical thing 
to do is bring it up, kill it, and let us move forward. But apparently 
there are not 41 votes against it. I don't know, but I am guessing. So 
we are where we are. I am hoping it all gets worked out because I think 
we are close to getting this bill done. I think it is a bill that both 
sides can vote for overwhelmingly. I have enjoyed working with the 
chairman of the committee in getting reasonable adjustments in the 
bill, and it would be a shame to see all of that hard work go down the 
drain if we can't get this resolved.
  I yield the floor and 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are having a discussion on 
the floor about the amendment being proposed by Senator Gregg from New 
Hampshire, known as the second look at wasteful spending amendment, to 
the pending legislation, which is called the Legislative Transparency 
Act of 2007. I spoke on this particular amendment offered by Senator 
Gregg last week, and I came to the Chamber and expressed my strong 
support for what Senator Gregg is trying to do. For the life of me, I 
don't understand why we would want to put an issue such as this off, 
because it adds transparency to the process. That is the name of the 
bill we have before us: the Legislative Transparency Act of 2007.
  What the Gregg amendment would do is to allow the President to 
identify certain items in bills that are earmarks or may be classified 
as pork barrel spending. Then once those provisions have been 
identified, they would get singled out, and then, the President can 
bring those forward and allow the House and the Senate to vote on those 
separately.
  What happens so many times in legislation that comes before the 
Congress is a process which is called logrolling. It is an old term; it 
has been around for a long time. You just keep adding issues in there 
and adding issues in there and make a piece of legislation bigger, and 
you pick up votes, and the bill gets so big and cumbersome that it is 
difficult to find people who are going to vote against it because there 
are so many issues in there they support. So what Senator Gregg does to 
bring transparency to this process is to take out those single issues, 
give the President an opportunity to pull those out and send them back 
to both the House and the Senate, and we vote on them as a separate 
issue. That creates a clear position on that particular issue from the 
House and the Senate. I daresay if we do that, we will cut back on a 
lot of spending, for those of us who are concerned about the mounting 
deficits in our Federal budget, who are concerned about accountability, 
and who are concerned about the process around here, both in setting up 
a budget and then the appropriations bills that come forward.
  I think it is an accountability issue, and I hope we can bring this 
up and have a vote, in my view, the sooner the better because right now 
we are involved in an appropriations process that got bogged down from 
the last session because of earmarks and those

[[Page S660]]

kinds of spending provisions, and we are getting ready to go into a 
budget process and then right back into appropriations. So the sooner 
we can deal with this type of legislation, the better.
  I am hoping the leadership here in the Senate would consider and 
eventually allow us to bring this up, and as I say, the sooner the 
better because it brings accountability to the budget process. That is 
something we have all been talking about, those of us who are serious 
about getting the deficit under control, those of us who are serious 
about some accountability in the budgeting process. If I secure funding 
for a project in an appropriations bill, I don't have any problem 
letting people know about it because what I do is I go through the 
process of getting it authorized; that is, the authorizing committee 
has looked at it and they have verified that whatever it is that is in 
the amendment is legitimate, they have reached a consensus on what 
needs to be done to bring accountability to that particular project or 
program. Then you take it to the Appropriations Committee, and they 
allocate the money and they keep allocating the money, and by holding 
on to the purse strings, they continue to make that an accountable 
process. If we have any shortfall in what is going on, it is a lack of 
accountability in the budgeting process and in the appropriations 
process. I don't believe this makes it any more complicated. I myself 
think it is pretty straightforward, and I think it is constitutional.
  Now, we had sort of a line-item rescission process this Congress 
passed a number of years back with a large reform. The courts looked at 
it and decided it was unconstitutional. But in this legislation the 
final decision is made by the Congress. We leave control of the purse 
strings here in the Congress. The President just delineates a few of 
these programs or projects and then brings them back to the Senate, and 
we vote on them separately.
  So I just felt compelled to come to the floor and reemphasize how 
very important I believe it is that we step forward and we begin to act 
on these kinds of commonsense solutions Senator Gregg has offered. He 
was chairman of the Budget Committee. He has worked hard on this issue. 
I supported his Stop Overspending Act of 2006 when he introduced it in 
the last Congress. It had a similar provision in there. This is 
important. I hope we can get an opportunity to act on this particular 
provision before we move off of this piece of legislation. I ask my 
colleagues here in the Senate to join us in trying to bring excessive 
spending under control.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President, and 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I know we are in an unfortunate 
gridlock at the moment, but earlier in the afternoon my friend from 
Utah, Senator Bennett, rose to indicate that he intended, at some point 
in the debate, to move to strike a section of the bill regarding so-
called grassroots lobbying. It requires disclosure of people doing paid 
grassroots lobbying exceeding a certain threshold of spending every 
year. And this provision is part of the title of the bill before us 
that came out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, of which I am privileged to chair and of which I am 
privileged to have the distinguished Presiding Officer as a new member 
of.
  I wish to respond to several statements that Senator Bennett made. We 
will have a fuller debate, I am sure, before he asks for a vote on his 
amendment. But for the record, for the information of my colleagues, I 
wish to speak in favor of what I believe is one of the most important 
elements of this lobbying reform legislation.
  The original provision, sponsored in committee by my friend from 
Michigan, Senator Levin, and myself, requires, for the first time, 
disclosure of so-called paid grassroots lobbying. Much has been said--I 
fear, too much of it not on point--about this provision and its 
purported impact on free speech. I wish to reassure my colleagues that 
those claims about this provision are not true.
  This grassroots lobbying provision would do nothing to stop, deter or 
interfere with individuals exercising their constitutional rights to 
petition our Government for redress. We are talking about disclosure, 
not censorship, not limits in any way on lobbying. We are talking about 
disclosure of large sums of money spent by professional organizations. 
We are not talking about barring any organization from conducting a 
grassroots lobbying campaign. And we are not talking about small 
grassroots lobbying efforts.
  We are talking about major media campaigns, mass mailings, large 
phone banks, designed for the purpose of influencing Members of 
Congress or the executive branch on specific issues. There is nothing 
wrong with that. But it has become, as I will discuss in a moment, an 
ever-increasing, evermore expensive part of the way in which people use 
their constitutional right to petition their Government, and it has, 
unfortunately, been abused, particularly in the Abramoff case. This 
provision would shine the disinfecting, the edifying, the illuminating, 
the educating sunshine of public disclosure, but would impose no 
limitation on constitutional rights.
  Our former colleague, the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas--a 
wonderful man and a great Senator--once referred to this kind of paid 
grassroots lobbying as ``astroturf lobbying'' because it was not real 
grassroots lobbying. It was generated, manufactured, and not self-
grown. It, to me, defies logic to require a company to disclose--as we 
do in law now, and would even more according to the underlying bill, S. 
1--to require a company to disclose its direct lobbying of Members of 
Congress, while giving that same company a pass by not requiring it to 
disclose anything with regard to its efforts to manufacture and 
generate thousands of pieces of mail and calls for the same purpose.
  To avoid confusion, I want my colleagues to understand what this 
provision does and what it does not do. It does not ban or restrict 
grassroots lobbying of any kind in any way. That would be wrong. 
Grassroots lobbying is an important way for people to get involved and 
contact their Members of Congress or the executive branch. There is 
nothing wrong with astroturf lobbying, as Senator Bentsen described it, 
either. It is not self-generated grass, but it is appropriate, 
constitutional and legal and nothing in this provision of S. 1 would 
stop it.
  This legislation simply requires disclosure of the amount of money 
spent on grassroots lobbying when it is conducted by professional 
organizations. The opponents of this measure would have us believe we 
are trying to amend the first amendment. That is not true. Our Senate 
phones are often jammed with callers expressing their points of view 
and all giving the exact same message. That comes from somewhere, is 
paid for by somebody and is part of an organized effort, and the public 
and the Members have a right to know who is paying and how much.
  I wish to note this provision responds directly to one element of the 
Abramoff scandal. Mr. Abramoff funneled money from one of his clients, 
the Mississippi Choctaw Indians, to a grassroots lobbying firm run by 
Ralph Reed to oppose pro-gambling measures. The Choctaws were 
particularly interested in stifling competition to their gambling 
activities. Well, it seems to me in that case the public had a right to 
know the anti-gambling campaign was funded by those trying to protect--
which is their right--their own position in the gambling industry from 
further competition.
  Mr. Abramoff also directed his clients--and here is where we get into 
big problems--to pay millions of dollars to grassroots lobbying firms 
controlled by himself and his associate Michael Scanlon, fees that were 
in part directed back to Mr. Abramoff personally but never known by the 
public as direct fees. If the disclosure requirements that we are 
proposing here had been in place, Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon would 
have had to have disclosed these multimillion dollar fees they passed 
through this grassroots lobbying operation and, therefore, I believe 
they probably would not have been able to pull that particular scam off 
so easily.

[[Page S661]]

  In crafting this provision, Senator Levin and I have been careful to 
listen to grassroots organizations and have incorporated several 
safeguards to make sure we do nothing to inhibit their exercise of free 
speech. We make clear, for example, that the grassroots lobbying effort 
must be in support of a direct lobbying effort. Grassroots activities 
without connection to lobbying do not trigger a reporting requirement 
in and of themselves. So no matter what is being said here, I assure my 
colleagues that if this bill passes with this provision in it, anyone 
picking up their phone of their own free will to tell their Member of 
Congress how they feel about an issue is not going to face any 
requirements under our amendment.
  Here is another threshold the amendment requires. Some people say: 
What if an organizational leader writes to his Members or a clergyman 
writes to his church to urge them to express an opinion on a particular 
matter to Members of Congress? It wouldn't be covered by this. We 
exclude efforts that are not professional, that are not paid for, and 
we exclude all efforts that cost less than $25,000 per quarter. That is 
a significant exemption, and it means that an organization can spend up 
to $100,000 a year on paid grassroots lobbying without triggering the 
disclosure requirement. Again, we also exclude communication made by 
organizations to their own members. And we exclude any communication 
directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
  So what we are asking for is disclosure of spending over $25,000 per 
quarter to get others to engage in grassroots lobbying, and we are 
asking them to report just one number rounded to the nearest $20,000. 
Eleven years ago, Senator Levin unsuccessfully fought for a grassroots 
lobbying disclosure provision when Congress originally passed the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act. At the time he said, to the best of his 
knowledge, grassroots lobbying campaigns spent about $700 million a 
year. To the best of my knowledge, though obviously we don't know 
because there is no disclosure, that figure has multiplied probably 
into the billions per year, and the public has no accurate picture of 
who is spending what to influence others to lobby Congress. That is 
what this provision would do.
  My friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, pointed out that the first 
amendment protects the right of every American to petition Government 
for redress of grievances. Of course, that is true, and lobbying is 
part of that. As I said in my opening statement on this bill, it is a 
constitutionally protected right. The Senator further pointed out that 
the Supreme Court has said this right is not diminished if performed 
for others for a fee. That is also correct. I agree. Nothing about 
disclosure, however, is inconsistent with that first amendment right. 
Requiring disclosure under certain narrow circumstances is all our 
grassroots provision would try to do. The fact is, the Supreme Court 
has upheld disclosure requirements for direct lobbying. I am confident 
that the Court's reasoning applies equally to the disclosure we are 
proposing for paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.
  In the leading case on lobbyist disclosure, which is U.S. v. Harriss, 
decided in 1954, the Supreme Court considered the Federal Regulation of 
Lobbying Act which at that time required every person ``receiving any 
contributions or expending any money for the purpose of influencing the 
passage or defeat of any legislation by Congress'' to report 
information about their clients, their contributions, and their 
expenditures. The Supreme Court upheld in that case disclosure 
requirements for the Court's narrow definition of lobbying, which 
included not only direct communications with legislators but also their 
artificially stimulated public letter campaigns to Congress. Two courts 
of appeals have also upheld grassroots lobbying disclosure 
requirements. In Minnesota State Ethical Practices Board v. the 
National Rifle Association, decided by the Eighth Circuit Court in 
1985, that circuit upheld the State statute requiring disclosure of 
grassroots lobbying, even when the activity at issue was correspondence 
from a national organization to its members. In other words, the Eighth 
Circuit upheld a statute that goes even farther than we are going 
because we are exempting communications made by organizations to their 
own members.
  In the other case, the 11th Circuit, in a case known as Florida 
League of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, decided about 10 years 
ago in 1996, upheld a Florida law which required disclosure of 
expenditures both for direct lobbying and indirect lobbying activities.
  Astroturf lobbyists who don't like this legislative provision may 
well challenge it in court. That could be said of most pieces of 
legislation that Congress considers. But I believe the weight of 
precedent of both the Supreme Court and the two explicit circuit court 
cases on grassroots lobbying should give us confidence that extending 
the essential disclosure requirements of lobbying to paid efforts to 
stimulate grassroots lobbying would be upheld as constitutional.
  I hope more broadly that we can proceed with this bill. It is an 
important reaction to the voices of the people that we have all heard 
who are offended by the ethical scandals here in Congress over the last 
few years, as we all, each Member of Congress, are embarrassed by those 
scandals. This underlying bill, S. 1, is a very strong response to 
them. I hope it does not fall by the wayside in what may appear to 
observers to be the first partisan gridlock of this session of 
Congress. Surely we can figure out a way to proceed to consider the 
issue that is the subject of the gridlock at some point in the Senate 
and then proceed rapidly to consider the other amendments pending on S. 
1, adopt the bill, and go forward.
  I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest on the 
television when my friend from Connecticut was responding to my 
amendment, talking about the grassroots or astroturf kinds of 
lobbyists. I was struck as usual with my friend's good intentions. I am 
reminded once again of a comment I made, which the Presiding Officer 
heard me make, which is hard cases make bad law.
  The Abramoff situation was clearly a matter of money laundering. It 
had little or nothing to do with lobbyists. He found a way to use a 
particular activity in order to channel contributions from one of his 
clients back to himself in fees that would be hidden. That is being 
offered as a reason why we need to adopt this amendment with respect to 
grassroots organizations.
  My friend from Connecticut talked about simply disclosure. Everybody 
who does this ought to say what they are doing, and we are not stopping 
them. Yes, they have their constitutional right to do this. And yes, it 
is a proper thing for them to do, so long as it all gets disclosed. 
Because if Abramoff had been forced to disclose, he wouldn't have been 
able to launder the money. That sounds enormously reasonable. But as I 
listened to the details, comparing them to my knowledge of the 
underlying bill, I realized, once again, this is being crafted with an 
eye toward the astroturf lobbyists, without an understanding of how 
chilling an effect it will have on genuine grassroots kinds of 
activities.
  As the ACLU pointed out in its letter, the reporting requirements are 
so heavy and so onerous and now, as a result of an amendment we have 
previously adopted, carry with them a $200,000 fine, if they are 
inadvertently broken, that it will have a chilling effect on many 
groups who will decide they simply don't want to run the risk. We 
simply don't want to expose ourselves to this. Someone who 
inadvertently violates the law or violates the reporting requirements 
which we would be putting into the law, who accepts a relatively small 
amount of money for his services but somehow triggers the amount listed 
in the bill, finds himself or herself subject to a $200,000 fine for 
each incident. And even if that individual goes to court and gets it 
set aside, the legal costs will clearly go above $200,000.
  To what end? Members of Congress are fully aware of how these 
astroturf campaigns are mounted. We understand when we are the target 
of one of

[[Page S662]]

these. I don't know a single Member of Congress who can be swayed by 
this kind of thing, if, in fact, the underlying legislation is bad 
legislation in the opinion of the Member of Congress. I know many of 
these people do this to make a living, and they convince their Members 
that it is a worthwhile kind of thing. They will still continue to do 
that, the big ones. This is not something that is part of any culture 
of corruption. We cannot point to anybody who has been overwhelmed by 
these and, therefore, changed his mind on a particular piece of 
legislation.
  Let's have a little understanding of the way the system works and a 
little common sense about how Congress responds, about how people try 
to bring particular pressure points upon them.
  I respect my friend from Connecticut. I think his reading of the law 
is obviously very careful. But I come back to exactly the same position 
I did before in my earlier statement. This will have a chilling effect 
on honest, responsible, legitimate grassroots kind of activity, because 
the people who engage in that kind of activity will be afraid that 
their exposure to a $200,000 fine is too great. And it will be easier 
for them to say: Never mind.
  People who do the astroturf kind of thing, where they are big enough 
and they have enough money, they have enough legal background, file all 
their reports and will continue to do it. The reports will be filed, 
and no one will pay any attention to them. I often say the best place 
to hide a leaf is on the floor of the forest surrounded by all of the 
other leaves. There will be a blizzard of reports coming from the big 
people who can afford to do this, and there will be a chilling effect 
on the little people who will be very nervous about the exposure we 
have built into this bill.
  In the previous bill passed by the Senate that had this provision in 
it, the fine was $50,000. That was serious enough. Now that the fine is 
$200,000, I am getting all kinds of concern from all kinds of groups 
that are not professional astroturf lobbyists but legitimate grassroots 
groups that are very anxious that this is going to, in effect, hamper 
their ability to exercise their constitutional rights. Will it legally 
prevent them from exercising their rights? No, it won't. Will it 
practically prevent them from doing so? Yes, in all probability, it 
will. And the result is simply not worth that kind of risk to run.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Bennett's 
amendment to strike section 220 from the bill. The debate about section 
220 is essentially a debate about the openness of the legislative 
process. It is a debate about the right of the American people to know 
who is spending money to influence their elected representatives and 
how that money is being spent.
  It is important not to be misled by the use of the term grassroots 
lobbying in section 220. We aren't talking here about constituents 
reading the newspaper and deciding to call their Member of Congress to 
weigh in on the issue of the day. No, what section 220 deals with is 
paid grassroots lobbying, the spending of money to try to get the 
public to contact Congress. It is estimated that grassroots lobbying is 
a billion dollar business. That is a billion undisclosed dollars spent 
by special interests to influence the legislative process. We should 
keep in mind as well that in 2005 a few million of those undisclosed 
dollars went to Grassroots Interactive, a so-called ``grassroots'' 
lobbying firm controlled by Jack Abramoff. E-mails made public by the 
Indian Affairs Committee indicate that Abramoff and his accomplice 
Michael Scanlon prided themselves on being able to make it appear as if 
there was significant public concern over an issue. Further, those e-
mails suggest that Abramoff and Scanlon used the grassroots lobbying 
firm as a way to avoid public scrutiny of their activities because 
current law does not require disclosure for grassroots lobbying firms. 
For example, Jack Abramoff reportedly paid Ralph Reed $1.2 million to 
use his Christian Coalition network to stimulate public opposition to a 
tribal casino; under current law, Ralph Reed's supporters were 
completely in the dark about the fact that their antigambling efforts 
were being funded by a competing tribal casino.
  The lobbying disclosure law, as it stands now, contains a billion 
dollar loophole. All section 220 does is close that loophole.
  I am going to address some of the claims made by the Senator from 
Utah, but first let me explain what section 220 does. First, it 
requires registered lobbyists to report how much they spend on efforts 
to stimulate grassroots lobbying on the lobbying disclosure reports 
that they are already required to file. Second, it requires large 
professional so-called grass roots lobbying firms to report on the 
amount they receive for their services, just like any other lobbyist. 
And that is it, that is all section 220 does. Organizations do not have 
to report on the amounts they spend to communicate with their own 
members, and they only have to report on the cost of their 
communications with the general public if they are required to register 
and file under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
  By the way, communications to fewer than 500 people are not 
considered by section 220 to be communications to the general public. 
And here is the important thing private citizens can still call, write, 
e-mail, fax, or visit their Senators anytime they want, in response to 
a call from a telemarketer or an e-mail from an organization they 
belong to, or because they read something in the morning paper, without 
ever have to report anything at all. Citizens are completely unaffected 
by this provision.
  Some groups, especially the ACLU, have raised concerns that section 
220 will intrude on Americans' freedom of speech and right to petition 
the Government. I appreciate the ACLU's concerns and am grateful for 
its vigilance in protecting our civil liberties, but in this case its 
reservations are unfounded. In 1954, in United States v. Harriss, the 
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of disclosure requirements 
in the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, stating that Congress is 
entitled to require a modicum of information from those who for hire 
attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that 
purpose. That is exactly what section 220 does. Without disclosure, the 
Court warned, ``the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned 
out by the voice of special interest groups seeking favored treatment 
while masquerading as proponents of the public weal.'' Paid grassroots 
lobbying is a billion dollar business. It will not be chilled or 
discouraged by the very reasonable disclosure requirements in section 
220.

  While the ACLU's opposition to section 220 is honest and heartfelt, 
the same cannot be said of attacks made by some other groups. Their 
claims are so outrageous, so manifestly untrue, so unhinged from 
any connection to the reality of this bill, that I would like to assume 
that they have been misinformed about the details of the section, or 
that perhaps they are mistakenly referring to an entirely different 
piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that 
they are engaged in a campaign of deliberate misinformation about the 
details of section 220. And of course, because of the loophole they are 
trying to protect, we may never know who is spending big money to try 
to convince the public to tell us to oppose this provision.

  I certainly would not claim that the Senator from Utah is 
deliberately trying to mislead the Senate. But his statement today 
shows a deep misunderstanding of how section 220 works. So let me 
address several of the claims he made.
  First, the Senator from Utah said the following:

       Someone who gets his neighbors together and says, let's all 
     write our congressmen on this issue and then spends some 
     money doing it, under this provision, becomes a paid lobbyist 
     and if he does not report and register, would be fined 
     $200,000 for having done that.

  That is simply not true. The definition of lobbyist and the 
requirements for registration are not changed by this bill or section 
220. A lobbyist doesn't have to register under the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act unless he makes a lobbying contact on behalf of a client and

[[Page S663]]

receives over $5,000 for lobbying activities engaged in for a 
particular client. So the person who gets his neighbors together as 
described by the Senator from Utah and spends some money getting them 
to write some letters is not a lobbyist and does not have to register--
before this bill or afterwards. That is not just a matter of 
interpretation of the statute; it is the undisputed meaning of the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act.

  The Senator from Utah also said the following in his statement 
yesterday:

       A grass-roots lobbying group decides in its neighborhood 
     that the most effective means of influencing and speaking up 
     on legislation is to send out letters to its membership. Or 
     perhaps it may decide the most effective means would be to 
     buy a mailing list and send out letters to the people on 
     the mailing list. As soon as they spend the money to buy 
     the mailing list, there is a paid lobbyist involved. And 
     if the registration is not correct, there is a $200,000 
     fine against that group if we leave this--this provision 
     in the bill as it is.

  Again, that is not true. Unless an organization makes direct contact 
with a Member of Congress and spends more than $10,000 in a quarter on 
lobbying activities, then it does not have to register. And if it does 
not have to register, it does not have to report its spending on that 
mailing list. In addition, and this is very important, a group's 
spending to communicate with its own members is not considered grass 
roots lobbying at all.
  The only way that this group would have to register is if it makes 
direct contact with a Member of Congress and spends over $10,000 in a 
quarter on lobbying activities, not including communicating with the 
general public to try to get the general public to contact the 
Congress. If the group does that, then it is not a small grassroots 
lobbying group. And yes, it has to register and report. I think that is 
the correct result.

  I have taken a fair amount of time to respond to the Senator from 
Utah because this legislation is too important to let mistaken 
discussions of this provision stand without an answer.
  Some of section 220's opponents have claimed that it is designed to 
keep the public in the dark about the legislative process, that it 
targets individual citizens and small grassroots organizations, that it 
will prevent organizations from communicating with the public, and that 
it will smother lobbyists in miles of redtape.
  None of these claims are true. Not one. I suppose the groups 
spreading this information are so afraid of section 220 that they are 
willing to say anything to try to stop it. But I wonder exactly what 
they are afraid of. Section 220 only applies to registered lobbyists 
and large grassroots lobbying firms, and it does not prohibit or 
restrict their activities in any way. In fact, section 220 merely makes 
public how much money they spend and how they spend it. Surely these 
groups that have tried to convince people to contact their offices with 
mistaken claims about the bill aren't afraid of a little sunlight--or 
maybe they are.
  We are so close to passing the kind of ethics bill that the public 
wants, that the 2006 elections endorsed, and that our democracy needs. 
Defeating this amendment will bring us closer to the day we can go back 
to our States and tell our constituents that we actually delivered real 
bipartisan lobbying reform. But what will our constituents say if this 
amendment succeeds and the Senate votes to reopen a billion-dollar 
loophole in the lobbying disclosure law?
  I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the phony arguments being 
advanced by the opponents of this provision. I ask my colleagues to 
please vote no on the amendment of the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). 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 (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to bring everyone up to date as to where we 
are, I made a good-faith offer to the minority that we will put the 
line-item veto off to another day. Senator Byrd was not agreeable to 
that. I talked to Senator Byrd on more than one occasion this evening, 
the last time for a significant amount of time, and he simply believes 
this line-item veto is a matter of great constitutional import, that 
for us to agree at this time to debate this would be wrong and that he 
simply will not do that.
  Having said that, I still say I think it is a terribly unfortunate 
day for this Senate that a bipartisan piece of legislation dealing with 
ethics and lobbying reform that has been cosponsored for the first time 
in three decades as the first bill brought before the Senate by the two 
leaders, Democratic and Republican leader, is not going to be allowed 
to go forward based on the Republicans not being able to have a vote on 
a matter that is not germane or relevant to this legislation.
  We have done so much with this legislation. We introduced the bill 
that passed this Senate last year by a vote of 98. We strengthened that 
significantly with the substitute. A number of amendments were offered 
by my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues. There are those 
who say that Senators thought those amendments would not be agreed to. 
They have been agreed to, with rare exception.
  We have 15 or so amendments that would be postcloture germane on the 
substitute if cloture were invoked. We have agreed those amendments 
should go forward.
  The point I am making is it is too bad that it appears this bill is 
not going to pass because of a line-item veto. That is what it is all 
about. Members can talk about things in here that may apply, and the 
Parliamentarian says it is not germane. To think we can dispose of this 
piece of legislation in a few minutes is not sensible. This is 
something that will take a lot of debate. Senator Conrad, alone, would 
take a number of hours. Senator Byrd would take a number of hours. 
Senator Levin, who is one of the plaintiffs taking this to the Supreme 
Court, would take a significant amount of time.
  I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would reconsider. 
After what has gone on in Washington, in the courts alone, this 
requires our doing something. We, in good faith, have moved forward on 
this, playing by the Senate rules. I hope people of good will on the 
other side of the aisle vote to invoke cloture. If not, as I said 
earlier today, there is only one reason this bill is going to not pass. 
It is because the minority does not want it to pass, period, 
underscore, exclamation point.

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lott amendments 
Nos. 78 and 79 be withdrawn, that at 9 o'clock p.m. tonight all time 
postcloture be yielded back, and without further intervening action or 
debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following: 
Feingold amendment No. 65; Bennett amendment No. 81, as modified; Reid 
amendment No. 4, as amended, if amended; motion to invoke cloture on 
the Reid substitute amendment; provided further that there be 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided between each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there objection?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might 
say in response to my good friend, the majority leader, there is no 
particular reason these votes could not be held in the morning. It is 
clear we are at an impasse. That frequently happens in the Senate. It 
is not at all unusual. It is also not at all unusual to have nongermane 
amendments offered on bills. They are offered on virtually every bill 
that goes through the Senate. So there is nothing extraordinary 
happening on this bill that we do not see in the Senate with great 
repetition on bill after bill after bill after bill.
  We have been working in good faith to reach an agreement with respect 
to Senator Gregg's amendment on enhanced rescission. I wish to thank 
the Senator from New Hampshire for his patience in that regard. He was 
here early on this bill. He offered it a week ago--it has now been 
pending for an entire week--and is prepared for a vote.
  Now, the majority leader, to his credit, was attempting to reach an 
agreement to allow for a vote on this issue at a later date. He 
mentioned it needed to be sufficiently debated. Of course, at a later 
date, in the context in which he

[[Page S664]]

and I and Senator Gregg were discussing it, there would be plenty of 
time for debate, adequate time to make the arguments on both sides to 
fully consider this important measure, with plenty of time for everyone 
to have their fair say about it.
  Unfortunately, the majority leader has an objection on his side, and 
therefore it appears we will not be able to finish this bill this week. 
I hope we can continue to work on a path toward finishing the 
underlying bill. It passed last year 90 to 8, after the then-minority 
defeated cloture on one occasion in order to do exactly what this 
minority is going to do to defeat cloture on one occasion, which is to 
guarantee consideration of additional amendments.
  So I would have hoped we could have had these votes in the morning 
because not much progress will be made tonight in this regard.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want 
to thank the Republican leader and the majority leader for their 
efforts to try to move forward with my amendment. There was a lot of 
work done, and we had, I thought, a reasonable understanding as to how 
to proceed, which was outlined on the floor earlier in a colloquy 
between myself and the Republican leader and the Democratic leader and 
the assistant Democratic leader.
  I regret that there is an objection on the other side. But I 
appreciate the Republican leader's willingness to protect my rights by 
maintaining my ability to amend this bill, if I cannot get this 
amendment up at a later date under a time certain, as we had an 
understanding at least between the four of us.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the unanimous consent request is agreed to; 
is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 78 and 79) were withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what I want to say is, I do not want anyone 
to be disabused that the only problem we had with our conversations was 
the time. As I indicated, I thought it would be appropriate to have a 
time certain to do this, but there were other issues that became 
involved in this also about how we would get to conference and other 
matters that were somewhat complicating, which certainly I did not have 
an opportunity to even discuss with Senator Byrd. But there were other 
hurdles we had to jump through. So it is not just as simple as that.
  The point is, it was not done. I think that is unfortunate. But the 
issue before this Senate tonight is whether we are going to move 
forward with the most significant lobbying and ethics reform, by a 
large margin, since Watergate. It would be historic legislation. I 
would remind everyone the legislation that passed last year, 90 to 8, 
was the original bill we laid down. So everyone understands, it was 
held up because of the Dubai Ports issue, which was resolved quite 
quickly.
  Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the record, a year ago when we debated 
ethics reform, the cloture motion was opposed on the Democratic side 
after we considered one amendment--one amendment. We have considered 12 
amendments to this bill to this point, plus there have been others that 
have been accepted by the managers. So our objection a year ago was the 
fact that we had not opened it to an amendment process. I do not think 
anyone can argue that point this evening when the minority decides, if 
they do, to oppose the motion to invoke cloture.
  I do not want to read too much into this. I hope this is just a bump 
in the road. But this is going to be a long journey of 2 years, and it 
does not start well when a bipartisan bill sponsored by the two 
leaders--the Democratic and Republican leaders--a substitute 
cosponsored by both leaders, and amendments cosponsored on both sides 
of the aisle are not enough impetus for us to pass a bill which is long 
overdue.
  We considered this bill a year ago. It has been set over and over 
again, but nothing happened. We were determined with the mandate of the 
last election to see some change on the floor of the Senate. I thought 
we were off to the right start with a bipartisan measure, an effort to 
cooperate, an effort to compromise--and there have been many 
compromises on the floor. To think it is going to break down this 
evening because we refuse to consider a measure which is not even part 
of this bill, not even relevant to this bill, not even germane to this 
bill, tells me that we have reached a bad spot in the road. I hope we 
can get beyond it. We have a lot of work we need to do in the time to 
come. I hope it starts off in the same bipartisan manner, but I hope it 
ends better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                     Amendment No. 81, as Modified

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am grateful to the majority leader for 
scheduling a vote on my amendment No. 81. I wish to inform the Members 
of the Senate that Senator Feinstein and I have been working to get 
this worked out in such a fashion that a recorded vote would not be 
necessary.
  I raised the issue because lawyers on our side examined the 
underlying legislation and said the way it was worded, it could, in 
fact, be interpreted to prevent the 501(c)(3) activity that is purely 
educational and not connected with lobbying in any way, in which many 
of us participate.
  The flagship example of that is the Aspen Institute and their 
Congressional Program. I am told the Aspen Institute has approved the 
language that is in the underlying bill. But I am convinced from the 
analysis of the lawyers that someone who wanted to do that program harm 
could, in fact, take the language of the underlying bill and attack the 
Aspen Institute Congressional Program.
  Furthermore, while the Aspen Institute is perhaps the best known and 
the best supported, there are a number of other purely educational 
programs conducted by groups that have some connection with lobbyists. 
They do not take lobbyists on the trip. The lobbyists do not use the 
trip in any way. But because the organization has some connection to a 
lobbyist--may have employed a lobbyist for some issue unrelated to the 
trip or may, as in the case of the Aspen Institute, have lobbyists on 
its board--I am told that someone who wanted to disrupt those programs 
could challenge them.
  So we have tried to work out a way to carve out this area reasonably 
and clearly, and we thought we had a deal. We had approval from both 
sides of the aisle by Senators who looked at it and said: Yes, this is 
exactly right. This is something we can certainly live with. We were, 
frankly, within minutes of having a voice vote on this, and then an 
objection was raised. The Senator who raised the objection has refused 
to budge. He has refused to compromise.
  I have modified our original proposal in an effort to get compromise 
and have been unable to get it. So we will be voting on it. I would 
hope everyone would understand, when the time comes to vote on the 
Bennett amendment No. 81, that we are not, in fact, as some might 
allege, creating any kind of a loophole. The Ethics Committee will be 
involved to review all of these programs in advance, to make sure they 
are, in fact, educational programs. Lobbyists will not be allowed to 
travel or be present at any of the meetings.
  We are talking about the kinds of things we should have more of in 
the Congress rather than less--opportunities across the aisle to get 
together under the sponsorship of a neutral organization, in a neutral 
location, and talk through the various problems.
  Again and again, as I have been involved in these things, people say 
to me: Why can't we have more of this in Congress? The way the 
underlying bill is written contains the potential of having less of it. 
My amendment is structured to see to it that we are able to preserve 
those connections and relationships we already have. And if some future 
foundation decides to fund a 501(c)(3) for an additional one, they will 
not be prohibited from doing so just because someone on the 
foundation's

[[Page S665]]

board happens to be a lobbyist. They will not be prevented from doing 
so just because someone connected with the 501(c)(3) happens to be a 
lobbyist, totally removed and apart from anything the 501(c)(3) is 
trying to do.

  I believe very strongly this is the way we ought to go. I am grateful 
to my chairman, Senator Feinstein, for her willingness to cooperate in 
a compromise. I am sorry we have been unable to work it out so that it 
is necessary for us to have a vote.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 65

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote begin 
now and be discontinued at 20 after the hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 65 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), 
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--5

     Coburn
     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bond
     DeMint
     Hagel
     Johnson
     Sessions
     Wyden
  The amendment (no. 65) was agreed to.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 81, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
81, offered by the Senator from Utah.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, on this 
amendment I wish to give them the names of the groups that would likely 
be prohibited from sponsoring educational travel, unless this amendment 
is adopted: Aspen Institute, Transatlantic Policy Network, Save the 
Children, CARE, Global Health Council, Population Action International.
  For those who think this is a loophole that Jack Abramoff could drive 
through, I point out that the amendment requires the Ethics Committee 
to vet each program in advance, examine who is going, whether there 
would be a lobbyist present, and what the purpose is. If you vote 
against this amendment, in my view, you are expressing a vote of no 
confidence in the chairman and ranking member of the Ethics Committee, 
Senators Boxer and Cornyn. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Reid amendment draws a bright line. 
Groups that employ or retain lobbyists could not provide trips of over 
1 day. The Bennett amendment allows 501(c)(3)s that lobby to provide 
trips. There is a limitation that will prevent this amendment from 
becoming a loophole that will lead to kinds of abuses we saw with Jack 
Abramoff and his trips to Scotland. If these groups don't lobby, there 
is no limitation; they can do this. That means, unlike what the Senator 
from Utah said, the Aspen Institute would not be prohibited under the 
Reid amendment. We must defeat this amendment to keep our rules 
parallel to the House rules and prevent lobbyists from funding these 
trips.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hagel
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 81), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are two more 
votes; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two more votes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the votes be 10 minutes in 
length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry, I should have suggested that on the last vote, 
but I just didn't do it.


                Amendment No. 4, as Modified and Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
equally divided before a vote on amendment No. 4, as modified and 
amended, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  Mr. REID. I yield back my minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader yields back his minute. 
Who seeks time in opposition?

[[Page S666]]

  Mr. BENNETT. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah yields back his time. 
All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4, as modified and 
amended.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Ensign
     Inhofe
     Lott
     Murkowski
     Stevens
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hagel
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 4), as modified and amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided on the motion to invoke cloture on the Reid 
substitute. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is the vote. People who do not vote to 
invoke cloture are not in favor of doing away with the culture of 
corruption we have here in Washington. This is good legislation. It is 
the most significant reform since Watergate by many degrees. I hope 
people will vote for cloture.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the minority will hopefully vote 
against cloture, just like the minority last year voted against cloture 
on the very same bill, or a very similar bill for the very same reason: 
to guarantee the opportunity to offer additional amendments. I urge all 
of our colleagues to vote no.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, by unanimous 
consent, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the 
pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Reid 
     substitute amendment No. 3 to Calendar No. 1, S. 1 
     Transparency in the Legislative Process.
         Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Lieberman, Tom 
           Carper, Ken Salazar, Robert Menendez, Patty Murray, Jon 
           Tester, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Debbie Stabenow, Daniel 
           K. Akaka, Barbara Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin, Dick 
           Durbin, Ted Kennedy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and the nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Hagel
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
46. A quorum being present, two-thirds of the Senators voting not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the bill 
be delayed to occur only if cloture is invoked on the substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise tonight at this late hour. The hour 
is late and the night is black. I rise tonight to shine a bright light 
on political chicanery that is playing out on the Senate floor.
  In November, America voted for a change. The people sent a strong 
signal that they wanted less partisanship and more accountability in 
Washington. In response to the voters, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, 
and Senator McConnell put before the Senate an ethics reform bill that 
would add transparency and accountability to the legislative process. 
They should be proud of their product, and the Senate has had a good 
debate thus far on the bill.
  But wait, wait, wait 1 second. Before we can clear the way for 
greater accountability and sunshine into the way work gets done in 
these halls, the Senate is being blackmailed into an assault on the 
Congress's single most precious and most powerful authority--the power 
of the purse. That is the most powerful authority we have: the power of 
the purse.
  Tonight, this reform bill is threatened by an effort by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give the President line-
item veto authority. No vote on the line-item veto, they say,

[[Page S667]]

and no ethics reform. That is nothing more than legislative blackmail, 
and I, for one, will not pay the price. No one should stand still when 
this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage. No one 
should stand still, I repeat, when this Constitution, which I hold in 
my hand, is the hostage.
  This line-item veto authority would grant tremendous and dangerous 
new power to the President. He would have unchecked authority to take 
from the Congress the power of the purse, a power that the 
constitutional Framers thought was absolutely vital to protecting the 
people's liberties.
  It was just 8 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the 
line-item veto was unconstitutional. Now our colleagues--some of them--
on the other side of the aisle are threatening to hold up the ethics 
reform bill in an effort to hand the President another line-item veto 
authority. Are the memories around here so short?
  Are the memories around here so short?
  We have a President who already has asserted too much power. This is 
a blatantly gross attempt to take even more power for the President and 
strip away power from the people.
  This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the 
telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant or court 
approval.
  This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and 
peek, to snoop and scoop, into the private lives of the American 
people.
  This President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty 
evidence and the misrepresentation of facts. And many Senators voted 
not realizing that was what was being done when we voted on the war 
resolution.
  So I say, this President has taken the Nation to a failed war based 
on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive 
strikes. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq 
in this crazed Presidential misadventure.
  And what is the response of the Senate? To give the President even 
more unfettered authority? To give him greater unchecked powers? We 
have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the 
aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down 
for this President or any other President.
  Of course, this President wants to take away Congress's power of the 
purse. When Congress has the sole ability to shut down these 
unconstitutional practices, when Congress is asking tough questions and 
demanding truthful answers about this war, when Congress is taking a 
hard look at finding ways to begin to bring our troops home, over the 
objections of this administration, the President's response is to 
demand that the Congress give away its most crucial power. Silence the 
Congress. Ignore the people. Strip away our constitutional protections 
and one may just as well strip away the people's liberties lock, stock, 
and barrel. Strip away the power of the Congress, the power of the 
people, and amass all power behind the fences and secret doors of the 
White House.
  No Senator should vote to hand such power to the President. No 
American should stand for it--not now, not ever.
  If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stop the 
Senate's effort to add transparency and accountability to the 
legislative process, that is their right and their choice. But I will 
not blink. I cannot look the other way. We should get on with the 
business at hand and pass meaningful ethics reform legislation. But we 
should never, never, hand away those precious constitutional powers--
the last protections of the people's liberties, vested in the people's 
representatives in this Congress--to any President.
  We have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of 
the United States. Here it is. I hold it in my hand. I say again, we 
have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the 
United States. And it is about time we did protect and defend that 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.
  I yield the floor and 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.

                          ____________________