[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2671-2687]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
begin consideration of Calendar No. 367, S. 2349, the lobbying reform 
legislation. I further ask consent that following the reporting of the 
bill, I be recognized in order to offer a substitute amendment, and 
following that action, the bill be open for debate only during today's 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

[[Page 2672]]

  The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2349) to provide greater transparency in the 
     legislative process.


                           Amendment No. 2907

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up the substitute amendment which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2907.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that my colleague from 
the Rules Committee, Senator Dodd, is here. He is the ranking member on 
the Rules Committee. We have done a lot of work together over the 
years, going all the way back to our days on the Rules Committee in the 
House. It is always a pleasure to do business with him.
  I am also pleased to see the distinguished chairman of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate, Senator 
Collins, who has been doing outstanding work there, with a greatly 
expanded committee, with jurisdiction over almost everything that is 
moving these days. She is doing a wonderful job.
  Again, I am pleased to see both of my colleagues here as we begin 
debate on this very important issue involving the rules of the Senate 
and lobbying reform legislation. I think one of the important things to 
note at the very beginning is that this legislation from both the Rules 
Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
was reported as bipartisan legislation, and it is legislation that will 
absolutely ensure greater transparency and accountability in the 
legislative process.
  There are those in Washington--me included--who have been concerned 
of late by how much partisanship there is in Washington and in the 
legislative process. I do think it has reached unprecedented levels. 
But I believe it is also possible for us to not have everything be that 
partisan. So that is why I think the way these two bills have been 
reported is so remarkable because the Rules Committee had a full debate 
and amendments were offered. Some were passed, some were rejected, some 
were accepted, and some were ruled out of order. When we got to final 
passage, Senators on both sides of the partisan aisle felt it was a 
fair process and there was not a single dissenting vote.
  Also, the Governmental Affairs Committee--if I may refer to it that 
way in shorthand--reported it with only one ``no'' vote after having a 
full discussion and some amendments that were not easy to deal with. So 
I hope the spirit of bipartisanship can carry to the floor when we take 
up the amendments.
  This afternoon's proceeding will be somewhat abbreviated because we 
have to take out some time for discussion about judicial nominees and 
votes, and we do have some further action with regard to the low-income 
energy assistance issue. However, when we get back to these bills 
tomorrow and are ready for amendments, I hope Senators will come over 
and we can get a time agreement and we will have a good discussion and 
votes. Perhaps even some amendments can be accepted, depending on what 
they are, and we can get this process completed before this week is 
over. I think that would be very good for the institution, and it needs 
to be done.
  I do think this is an important effort. I have looked at what the 
Rules Committee did and what came out of the Rules Committee in the 
last week. This will be the third time I have been involved in a 
process of changing the rules or looking at what we might need to do 
after a difficult time in our history. That was true back in the 
seventies after the Watergate matter. We took up campaign reform and 
ethics reform and made some significant changes, some of them wise and 
some of them turned out to be not so advisable. We had to address the 
people's confidence in our institutions at that time.
  Then again in the nineties we had some issues come up that caused 
problems and concerns following the House banking scandal. Again, we 
went through a process of looking at our ethics, looking at our rules, 
and looking at lobbying reform, and took action.
  Here again we are looking at some changes in the rules and some 
improvements or some additional requirements with regard to lobbying 
reform. I think it is needed.
  Some people say: Why do you have to keep changing? Are your rules, 
your ethics, are your lobbying requirements changing? Yes, they change 
with time. When we wrote the Telecommunications Act in 1996 and 1997, 
we thought phones were all going to be hard wired. We had no idea of 
all the technological advances that were going to occur. When we did 
immigration reform in 1997, I thought we did a good job. Obviously, we 
did a terribly inadequate job.
  We need to take a look at what we have done in the past when it comes 
to laws, rules, ethics reforms, lobbying reform, and modernize it. For 
one thing, with all the modern capability and technology, you can have 
instantaneous disclosure; you can have fuller disclosure. It is easier 
now to file reports with the Secretary of the Senate or to put it on 
your own Internet to divulge and disclose to the American people and 
all who wish to look at those reports what you are doing in your role 
as a Senator and your service to the people.
  I want to make it clear, I think this is an issue we should address. 
That is why when the leader called on me to have a hearing in the Rules 
Committee and to move forward, I moved forward on the issue 
aggressively because I thought there are rules changes that we need, we 
should do, could do, that would make common sense, and would be fair.
  This is an issue where it is very easy to lose control emotionally or 
we get involved in a tremendous process of self-flagellation and 
condemnation. I don't want to do that, but there are some places where 
there are legitimate concerns or appearances of impropriety which we 
can improve.
  Senator Dodd and I talked on the phone, we met, and we came up with 
some important points, and I think we have come up with a pretty good 
bill. We need to go forward, have a full discussion, take up serious 
amendments that will be offered, and get this job done. I look forward 
to working with Senator Collins and making this a bill with which both 
committees are comfortable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my section-by-section 
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Section-by-Section Summary of the Legislative Transparency and 
                  Accountability Act of 2006 (S. 2349)

(Reported by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, February 
                               28, 2006)

       Section 1. Short Title: The Legislative Transparency and 
     Accountability Act of 2006.
       Section 2. Out of Scope Matters in Conference Reports: New 
     Point of Order against out of scope matters in Conference 
     Reports. Point of Order can be waived by 60 votes. If the 
     Point of Order is sustained, the offending material is 
     deleted from the Conference Report and returned to the House 
     for it's concurrence.
       Section 3. Earmarks: Creates a new Standing Rule (XLIV) 
     dealing with earmarks. Earmarks are defined as ``a provision 
     that specifies the identity of a non-Federal entity to 
     receive assistance. . . .'' ``Assistance'' is defined to 
     include budget authority, contract authority, loan authority, 
     and other expenditures including tax expenditures or other 
     revenue items.
       This new Standing Rule requires that all Senate bills or 
     conference reports include a list of all earmarks in the 
     measure; an identification of the Member who proposed the 
     earmark, and an explanation of the essential government 
     purpose of the earmark. The bill or Conference Report, 
     including the list of earmarks, must be available to the 
     Senate and to the general public on the Internet for at least 
     24 hours before its consideration.

[[Page 2673]]

       Section 4. Conference Report Availability: Provides for the 
     implementation of the requirement that Conference Reports be 
     available to the general public for at least 24 hours before 
     its consideration. Requires the creation of a new Senate 
     website capable of posting this information. The effective 
     date of this Section is set as 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Act.
       Section 5. Floor Privileges for Former Members: Amends 
     Standing Rule XXIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate to 
     eliminate floor privileges for former Members, former Senate 
     Officers, and former Speakers of the House who are either 
     registered lobbyists or employed by an entity for the purpose 
     of influencing the passage, defeat or amendment of any 
     legislative proposal. Permits the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration to issue regulations allowing floor privileges 
     for such individuals for ceremonial functions or events 
     designated by the Majority and Minority Leader.
       Section 6. Gifts and Meals: Amends Standing Rule XXXV to 
     ban gifts from registered lobbyists or foreign agents. An 
     exception is provided for meals, retaining the current 
     financial limits. A provision is added requiring that within 
     15 days of receiving a meal, Members post on their website 
     the value of such meals and refreshments provided to 
     themselves and their staff, and the person who paid for the 
     meal.
       Section 7. Pre-Clearance of Trips and Disclosure: 
     Subsection (a) amends Standing Rule XXXV to require pre-
     clearance approval by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics 
     to receive transportation or lodging provided by a third 
     party, other than travel sponsored by a governmental entity. 
     The person providing the transportation and lodging would 
     have to certify that the trip was not financed, in whole, or 
     in part by a registered lobbyist or foreign agent and that 
     the person sponsoring the trip did not accept directly, or 
     indirectly, funds from a registered lobbyist or foreign agent 
     earmarked to finance the trip.
       A detailed trip itinerary would have to be provided to the 
     Ethics Committee along with a written determination by the 
     Senator that the trip is primarily educational; consistent 
     with official duties, does not create an appearance of use of 
     public office for private gain, and has a minimal, or no, 
     recreational component, before the Committee could approve 
     the trip.
       Not later than 30 days after the trip is completed, the 
     Member would have to file with the Select Committee on Ethics 
     and the Secretary of the Senate a description of the meetings 
     and events attended during the trip and the name of any 
     registered lobbyist who accompanies the Member during the 
     trip. Such information would also have to be posted on the 
     Member's Senate website. Disclosure would not be required if 
     such disclosure would jeopardize the safety of an individual 
     or adversely affect national security.
       Subsection (b) amends Standing Rule XXXV to require that a 
     Member or employee who is provided a flight on a private 
     aircraft, other than an aircraft that is owned, operated or 
     leased by a governmental entity, file a publicly available 
     disclosure report with the Secretary of the Senate 
     identifying the date, destination and owner or lessee of the 
     aircraft, the purpose of the trip and the persons on the trip 
     except the persons flying the aircraft. A similar disclosure, 
     without an exclusion for government flights, would be 
     required to be filed with the Federal Election Commission if 
     such a flight took place as part of a federal election 
     campaign.
       Section 8: Post-Employment Restrictions: Amends Standing 
     Rule XXXVII to conform the post-employment registered 
     lobbyist restrictions on Senate staff earning 75 percent of 
     the rate of pay of a Member with the restrictions that are 
     imposed on former Senators. Such staff would be prohibited 
     from lobbying the Senate for one year after their employment 
     terminates. This provision would be effective 60 days after 
     the date of enactment.
       Section 9: Public Disclosure of Employment Negotiations: 
     Amends Standing Rule XXXVII to require that a Member who is 
     engaged in prospective private sector employment 
     negotiations, prior to the election of the Senator's 
     successor, must file a public disclosure statement with the 
     Secretary of Senate regarding such negotiations within three 
     business days after the commencement of such negotiations.
       Section 10: Lobbying by Family Members: Amends Standing 
     Rule XXXVII to provide if a Member's spouse or immediate 
     family member is a registered lobbyist or employed by a 
     registered lobbyist, staff employed by the Member are 
     prohibited from having any official contact with the Member's 
     spouse or immediate family member.
       ``Immediate Family Member'' is defined as the son, 
     daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, 
     mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, 
     father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of 
     the Member.''
       Section 11: Unlawfully Using Public Office to Influence 
     Hiring Decisions: Amends Standing Rule XLIII to prohibit a 
     Member from seeking to influence, on the basis of political 
     affiliation, an employment decision of any private entity by 
     taking or withholding or offering or threatening to take or 
     withhold an official act; or to influence or offer or 
     threaten to influence, the official act of another.
       Section 12: Sense of the Senate on Scope of Restrictions in 
     The Act: A Sense of the Senate Resolution that any 
     restrictions imposed by this Act on Members and employees of 
     Congress should apply to the Executive and Judicial branches.
       Section 13: Effective Date: Provides that the Act shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment except in those cases 
     where a different enactment date is provided.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me go through the Rules Committee bill 
and talk about some of the more important aspects. I won't go into all 
the details because Members will have a chance to review what we 
reported last Tuesday, and now it will be in the Record. When I 
complete my comments, Senator Collins or Senator Dodd will be ready to 
speak. We will be able to make it very clear what we have done. Some of 
these things do need to be explained a little bit.
  First of all, with regard to earmarks, we do know that there has been 
an explosion of so-called earmarks. This is where you put provisions, 
money, language in an authorization, appropriations, or a tax bill. I 
remember a few years ago it was maybe a few hundred. I remember the 
highway bill back in the eighties, I think, it had 157 earmarks, and 
the bill we passed last year had thousands--I don't even know how many 
but thousands.
  I want to be the first to say I don't think that is totally 
inappropriate. I do think we need to have some better disclosure. I do 
think we need to think about how we do these earmarks, have some rules 
that make it clear who is doing what and for whom. So that is what we 
have tried to do with this legislation.
  Some people will come to the floor--and I presume somebody might even 
offer an amendment--and say that earmarks are prohibited. I will fight 
that with every ounce of energy in my body. Some people might maintain 
that should be better left to the executive branch. Why? Why should 
some bureaucrat who lives in Maryland or Virginia--and I say that term 
lovingly--who works at HUD or the Department of Transportation or the 
Department of Defense--it doesn't matter what department--how do they 
know more about what is needed in terms of roads or housing or National 
Guard in my State of Mississippi or more than the Senator from Maine 
knows about what the needs are in her State? So I think it is ludicrous 
to maintain only the executive branch is pure.
  By the way, do you think the executive branch does not have earmarks? 
The distinguished Presiding Officer noted an earmark for Pascagoula is 
not really an earmark. It is something clearly understandable and 
identifiable, and I am perfectly willing to identify it for the benefit 
of my constituents or anybody else who would like to take a look at it.
  With regard to the executive branch, I have seen articles that point 
out some of the earmarks. For example, with the Department of Energy, 
the Office of Management and Budget always picks their projects they 
like, that the Corps of Engineers would do, but not others which might 
involve locks and dams or flood control projects. So it is OK for them 
to do it but not us.
  What about what the Constitution says? Article I, section 9 of the 
Constitution, which deals specifically with spending, states:

       No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .

  So it is not up to the President alone. Congress has always had the 
final say on this issue of appropriations, and I am sure Senator Byrd 
would have something to say about this.
  Again, there is a limit to what is reasonable, and I think we have 
kind of lost a grip in that area. We do need to have some controls. It 
needs to be open and fair. It needs to be identified in the record.
  I have become more and more concerned particularly about the practice 
where items can be added in conference that were not considered by 
committee or in either body, whether it is language in a tax bill or 
appropriations bill or a highway project in an authorization bill, and 
there is no way to really get at it. That is why in the

[[Page 2674]]

Rules Committee--I worked with Senator Feinstein in particular, and 
Senator Hagel, and Senator Dodd--developed a procedure that will allow 
Members to remove items from conference reports that were never 
considered by either body.
  Under the committee's bill, if a point of order regarding the item is 
sustained, the offending provision would be removed, but the entire 
conference report would not fail. It would then be sent back to the 
House, minus the offending provisions.
  I emphasize again, think about what was happening. The Senate did not 
include a provision. The House did not include a provision. They go to 
conference. It is the end of a session, it is an omnibus appropriations 
bill, and, voila, all these things show up in a tax bill or an omnibus 
appropriations bill. If it comes back to the floor of the Senate on 
short notice, with maybe a couple of hours to review it, if you make a 
point of order and you succeed, the entire conference report is taken 
down and it has to start over again, not just go back to the House for 
final action. That is a scary situation.
  I remember attending a meeting one time where some language was being 
discussed that had not been in either bill that meant billions of 
dollars. I remember going back and saying to my then-chief of staff, 
Dave Hoppe, that this is dangerous; we should not allow this sort of 
thing to happen. Under this provision, if you garner the supermajority 
60 votes, it cannot be taken out. I actually preferred a simple 
majority. More and more around here everything takes a supermajority, 
not a simple majority. I thought 51 votes would have been sufficient. 
But in the committee, keeping the 60-vote test prevailed. I hope it is 
not abused.
  The bill also requires that committee and conference reports identify 
the sponsor of all earmarks so the Senator from Kansas will have to 
fess up that he has a project in an authorization bill, a tax bill, or 
an appropriations bill. He will have to indicate the amount and what it 
is for. It will have to be disclosed in the bill that comes back.
  Finally, to get greater transparency to the process, conference 
reports cannot be considered unless they are available within the 
Senate and on the Internet at least 24 hours before Senate 
consideration. There are those who thought it should be 48 hours. When 
we get to the end of a session, even 24 hours is a leap. We can always 
shorten that by unanimous consent. But to have some modicum, minimum 
amount of time to review these conference reports, to me, makes sense, 
and it is fair.
  So I think what we have done with regard to the so-called earmarks--
and we define what an earmark is in the bill because my distinguished 
colleague from Mississippi questioned what an earmark is, and the 
language clearly did not apply to everything, excluding appropriations. 
We clarified that. I think this is good language.
  I have already spoken to our counterparts in the House. They think 
this is progress. I think the idea that we are going to prohibit in 
some way earmarks would be going way too far.
  The next issue that our committee dealt with is the issue of gifts. 
Under our language, no gifts will be allowed from registered lobbyists 
to Members or staff, or if it is from a foreign agent. The committee 
took the suggestion of some of the witnesses who testified before the 
committee and excluded meals from the definition of gifts. You can 
still have your meal, but you would have to disclose it.
  The current rule is retained on the value of the meal, but Members 
would have to disclose that meal within 15 days on the Senator's 
Internet site. They would have to say if they had a meal and with whom 
they had a meal, or if you ordered in Dominos, you can mention that. 
The last time I mentioned another restaurant, my son said: Dad, I do 
sell for Dominos; could you put in a plug for Dominos? You have to 
disclose that on the Internet.
  We can get into lowering the limit on gifts or meals or raise it? 
What are we doing here? Let's just go cold turkey. I don't want to have 
to be worrying about whether some cheap tie is worth $65 instead of 
$48. Let's say no gifts from lobbyists or registered agents. I don't 
know Senators who get gifts. I really don't know any. And it is 
preposterous, by the way, that you would be getting gifts from a 
registered lobbyist. So no gifts.
  The bill also deals with third-party-funded travel. The committee 
rejected the idea of banning third-party-funded travel. I am sure there 
will be amendments offered in this area. We believe there is a useful 
educational value associated with most of these endeavors. However, in 
recognition that congressional travel can be abused, the committee 
adopted tough pre-clearance requirements for any such travel.
  The committee bill requires that non-governmental third-party-funded 
travel must be pre-cleared and approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. 
It was alleged that this is no different from the current situation. 
No, now it is advisory. It is permissible. They can review it. They 
pretty much generally do review it and say this is OK. This would 
require pre-clearance and approval.
  In order to qualify for Ethics Committee approval, the sponsor of the 
trip will have to certify to the Ethics Committee that the trip is not 
financed, directly or indirectly, by lobbyists. In addition, a detailed 
trip itinerary would have to be provided to the Ethics Committee, along 
with a written determination by the Senator that the trip is primarily 
educational, consistent with official duties, does not create an 
appearance of use of public office for private gain, and has a minimal 
or no recreational component before the committee could approve the 
trip. We are not saying they couldn't have a recreational component. If 
a Member plays a round of golf, the Member would have to pay for that.
  Not later than 30 days after the trip is completed, a Senator would 
have to file with the Ethics Committee and Secretary of the Senate a 
description of the meetings and events attended during the trip and the 
names of any registered lobbyists who accompanied the Senator during 
the trip. Such information would also have to be posted on the 
Senator's Internet Web site.
  Will it be a hassle? Sure. Is it something we can do and should do? 
Yes. We are going to have to do this.
  With regard to flights on private planes, in an effort to broaden 
transparency, the committee bill requires that all official travel on 
private aircraft must be disclosed, along with the names of the people 
traveling on the aircraft and the purpose of the trips. The disclosure 
rules will also apply when a Member uses a private aircraft in a 
campaign for reelection.
  We addressed the question of post-
employment restrictions. The bill tightens postemployment restrictions 
for high-paid staff by conforming the lobbying ban on senior staff with 
the ban on former Member lobbying. Therefore, senior staff will not be 
allowed to lobby the Senate for 1 year, and the current rules will 
continue to apply to the lower paid staff. Previously, just to show you 
what the difference is, I believe it was really only applied to senior 
leadership staff. This was taken to all senior staff, and it would be 
only the 1-year limit. But the language, as the Senate Rules Committee 
passed it, would limit it to 1 year on all Members lobbying.
  With regard to floor privileges, the committee addressed an issue 
about which some people have expressed concern: former Members lobbying 
on the Senate floor. I don't think this is a real problem, and I have 
never experienced it in my 16 years here. The committee believed that 
former Members who are registered lobbyists should not be seen to have 
an advantage in meeting with Members on the floor of the Senate; 
therefore, the committee bill bars former Members, ex-Secretaries of 
the Senate, ex-Sergeants at Arms of the Senate, and former Speakers who 
are registered lobbyists access to the Senate floor. Exceptions could 
apply for ceremonial events and events designated by the leaders. 
Again, I emphasize that former Members would be allowed to come, unless 
they are registered lobbyists. If they are registered lobbyists, they 
would not be able to

[[Page 2675]]

come to the floor, and it would apply to the former officers of the 
Senate and Speakers of the House.
  (Mr. Chambliss assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I wanted to explain this tie that the Senator from 
Mississippi has maligned. I don't know if I could seek a parliamentary 
ruling. Is that a violation of rule XIX, degrading the tie of a 
Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it is not a 
violation under the rules.
  Mr. ROBERTS. This was a tie, if the Senator will continue to yield, 
that was given to me by my wife.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, was this a gift?
  Mr. ROBERTS. It was given to me by my wife, it did cost under $50, 
and it is the color of the ever-optimistic and fighting Wild Cats of 
the Kansas State University, and I thought it was a pretty nice tie to 
go with this dark suit. Should I change that under the banner of the 
bill?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, recognizing the seriousness of the charges 
and the hurt feelings and the attitude of the Senator from Kansas, I 
ask unanimous consent that my disparaging remarks about his tie be 
expunged from the Record.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would appreciate that, but it didn't cause me much of 
a problem at all.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope this is not an indication of the 
tenor of the debate that is going to occur this week. I think that a 
little humor is fine, but I also think a little action is required in 
this area, and I promise to patch up my friend's feelings as soon as I 
get through here before the Senate.
  Speaking of public disclosure of employment negotiations, the 
committee addressed a potential conflict of interest situation where a 
Member is negotiating for a private sector job while still acting in 
his official capacity. This was an amendment that I believe was offered 
by Senator Santorum in the Rules Committee, it was not in our committee 
chairman's mark, but the committee discussed it and agreed that this is 
an area which should be adopted. It requires public disclosure of any 
such negotiations. The rule would not apply if the Member's successor 
has already been elected. Once an election has occurred for a 
successor, even though you might be back in what we call a lameduck 
session, you would be able to have such negotiation, but you wouldn't 
have to fulfill the public disclosure statement. Obviously, as long as 
you are in this body, you shouldn't be having negotiations with 
somebody about employment when you are leaving. If you do, you may, of 
necessity--it may happen accidentally, but if you do, you ought to at 
least disclose it.
  Lobbying by members of the Senator's family, has been in question and 
an issue in recent years. The committee adopted a rule that directly 
impacts family members who are registered lobbyists. The rule bars a 
Member's spouse or any immediate member of the family from lobbying the 
Member's staff, and we have a definition of what ``immediate family 
member'' is.
  We also have a provision with regard to unlawfully using public 
office to influence hiring decisions. The committee voted to amend the 
standing rules to prohibit a Member from threatening to take or 
withhold any official act in an effort to influence a private sector 
hiring decision. The committee approved this amendment, knowing full 
well that in current law, 18 U.S.C. section 201, it makes it a felony 
punishable by as long as 15 years in jail for a Member to try to 
influence such a hiring decision by threatening to take or withhold an 
official act. But the committee believed that even though it might be 
covered by law, that the Rules should be very clear in this particular 
area. I questioned, and others commented on the fact that if you 
recommend a former staff member to an entity as a highly qualified, 
capable young man or woman, certainly you can continue to do that. It 
is where you infer or suggest that you are going to withhold or do 
something as punishment if certain hiring actions are not taken.
  In conclusion, I believe the committee acted and produced a fair and 
balanced bill. I know some Members would like to ban all privately 
funded travel. Others will want to talk more about whether we are 
sufficiently policing ourselves.
  I believe our Ethics Committee over the years has done a good job. I 
served several years on the Ethics Committee. Unfortunately, it was an 
extremely active time. During that period, we had the so-called Keating 
5; we had a couple of Senators who had unintentionally, but still very 
importantly, leaked some information with regard to the Intelligence 
Committee. We had a very active period of time, but we faced up to it. 
And there have been other examples. I have no doubt that the current 
members of the Ethics Committee, which is evenly divided, are doing a 
good job. Part of their problem is us: our rules sometimes are not 
clear or they are ambiguous. They do need to be tightened up. We need 
to be more specific. And I am working with Chairman Voinovich to try to 
get some of those identified so that we can have some ethics rules 
changed.
  Mr. President, I have a little throat problem here, so let me stop at 
this point and say that I hope we can go forward expeditiously and in a 
fair way this week and address this very important issue of rules 
changes and lobby reform. I think we can do it in a bipartisan way and 
have a bill ready to go to conference by the end of this week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin these comments by thanking, 
first of all, my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, who chairs 
the Rules Committee, and the other members of the committee, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, who worked over the past number of days to put 
together a Rules Committee bill.
  The Rules Committee, for those who are interested in following this 
in detail, has jurisdiction over a couple of matters: the conduct of 
Members specifically and campaign finance reform issues. We don't have 
jurisdiction over lobbyists per se, except to the extent they are 
engaged in business with Members of Congress, with Members of this 
body. So our bill was specifically tailored to deal with Member conduct 
vis-a-vis lobbyists and, in some cases, spilled over a little bit into 
the campaign finance reform area, which I will address in a couple of 
minutes.
  I wish to underscore the points Senator Lott has made about the 
cooperative spirit with which the Committee dealt with its business. We 
worked, and we had a good working session. In fact, we had a number of 
sessions, actually, before the markup to try to come to some consensus. 
The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, when I asked him what sort 
of a bill he would like to put together, his first words were: A 
bipartisan bill. So we made that effort, and as a result of not an 
extensively long markup but one that went on for several hours where, 
as Senator Lott has pointed out, there were amendments that were agreed 
to and some disagreed to, and others made out of order, but we put 
together a bill that certainly was a major step forward, and it was 
supported by all members of the Rules Committee, even by members who 
had amendments that were rejected. We felt strongly that it was 
important that we try to act as unanimously as possible, and we did so.
  So today we gather here in this Chamber for the full consideration of 
that bill, plus the bill that was authored by the distinguished Senator 
from Maine, Ms. Collins, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman. This may be a unique situation about to occur here where the 
comanagers of this legislation will be the two Senators from the same 
State. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, is the ranking 
Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. 
In fact, I watched their markup the other day on C-SPAN, and it was 
very healthy and productive and, I thought, a very comprehensive 
discussion of their jurisdiction of these matters, which clearly 
involves the role of lobbyists and their

[[Page 2676]]

activities as they relate to Members as well but a bit different from 
the Rules Committee. I congratulate them and members of their committee 
as well for a very thoughtful conversation.
  I also commend Tim Johnson and George Voinovich, who are the vice 
chairman and chairman respectively of the Senate Ethics Committee. It 
has been said over and over again that there is no more thankless job 
in many ways than to be a member of the Ethics Committee, but they have 
done a remarkable job, in my view. They don't advertise what they do. 
Their meetings are not even necessarily publicized because they deal 
with these sensitive matters of allegations raised against Members of 
this body. But all of us who have watched them over the last number of 
years, along with the other members of that committee and their 
previous chairs, respect immensely the work they do. I suspect you are 
going be hearing from members of that committee during this debate and 
discussion as they report to this full body on their activities.
  So today the full Senate begins the process of considering 
legislation to bolster congressional accountability, make the 
legislative process fair, more transparent, and to regulate more 
tightly the relationships between Members of Congress, the executive 
branch officials, and lobbyists.
  It is imperative that we act on this bill to help restore the 
confidence of all Americans in the legislative process and in the laws 
we write. That confidence has been eroded by recent lobbying scandals 
involving Members principally, if not exclusively, of the House of 
Representatives. It is important that we note that.
  I commend as well our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for his 
leadership in this effort. Without his focus and dedication to bring 
real reform to the attention of the American people and to propose a 
very comprehensive measure himself which, in large part, is the basis 
of the bill we are considering today, we would not be as far along as 
we are. Senator Reid's bill is supported by 40 members of the 
Democratic caucus and represents a tough but appropriate response to 
the lobbying scandals of the other body.
  We are still waiting for the majority of the other body to unveil 
their lobbying reform priorities. Had we waited for the response of the 
other body to lobbying scandals that affected the House, I believe we 
would not be standing before the American people today in the U.S. 
Senate addressing this issue. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership 
on this measure and for taking positions that were not necessarily well 
received here in Washington but are essential to the confidence of the 
American people and the legislative process.
  Bringing this bill to the floor is a next step in a longer process 
which has occupied directly two Senate committees--Rules and 
Administration and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. These 
reform efforts will eventually involve both the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. We should also consider whether such reforms should 
extend to the executive and judicial branches as we consider changes to 
ethics laws. Some of these matters clearly spill over, in my view. 
Since we are dealing with these matters, we ought not to necessarily 
just leave it to ourselves and the legislative branch to examine these 
issues but should consider whether they should apply to our colleagues 
who serve in the executive and judicial branches as well.
  So let us be clear from the very outset about why we are here. There 
have been serious allegations made, and guilty pleas entered, regarding 
the criminal activities of certain Members of the House of 
Representatives and former staff and the activities of Jack Abramoff 
and his violations of current lobbying gift and ethics rules. Some of 
these abuses have involved spending earmarks or other special interests 
provisions. One House Member has already been convicted of criminal 
wrongdoing, resigned his seat, and has been sentenced to 8 years in 
prison on corruption charges. Senior House staffers have pled guilty to 
various violations. Others, including a political appointee of the Bush 
administration, have been indicted as well. I suspect more indictments 
will follow. By their guilty pleas, these individuals have acknowledged 
that they broke existing law, and I suspect that but for these 
activities, we might not have been dealing with the legislation that 
now brings us to the floor of this Chamber.
  The Abramoff story suggests that he also engaged in activities that, 
while perhaps technically legal, were nonetheless clearly unethical. In 
government, we must hold ourselves to a standard of accountability that 
involves not only doing what is legal but also what is right.
  As my colleague from Connecticut has noted, with this bill we have a 
chance to make what is clearly wrong also clearly illegal. Stricter 
enforcement of current laws and rules will go a long way toward 
addressing abuses, but we must also look to further reforms to reduce 
the risk of future wrongdoing. It is important to strengthen our 
current rules and procedures where we can to avoid future problems. So 
that is in a nutshell what we are about today and why we are here.
  Let me share a little bit of history because, as my colleague from 
Mississippi has pointed out, these are not events but rather a process, 
and they began a long time ago. As he pointed out, there are any number 
of efforts that have been made on so-called reform efforts.
  Regulating the relationships between Members and lobbyists is not 
something new. In 1876, the House of Representatives tried to require 
lobbyists to register with its Clerk, but enforcement was weak and not 
much came of those efforts more than 125 years ago.
  In the early 1930s, Congress held hearings on lobbying abuses with 
very little result at all, and in 1938 the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act was enacted, followed by the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying 
Act, the scope of which the Supreme Court soon narrowed. Additional 
reforms were implemented in the 1960s and then the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act of 1995 and the new Senate gift and travel rules followed.
  I say this to try and place our efforts in historical context and to 
underscore that reform is an organic and dynamic process, not an event. 
So it is appropriate to review and reform existing lobbying laws, gift 
rules, earmarking, and other procedures periodically. It is especially 
necessary today in light of the most recent scandals that have hit this 
town.
  Restoring the confidence of the American people in the legislative 
process requires it. If we fail here to come together to produce real 
reform, then we risk the further disillusionment of our fellow citizens 
and allow their confidence in Congress to erode further.
  It is clear that real, enforceable ethics reforms do work. Ethics 
reforms have over the years worked to improve the way Congress 
operates. Conflict of interest rules, earned-income limits, lobbying 
disclosure laws, the McCain-Feingold law and honoraria ban--in both of 
which I was privileged to play a role in--and other key provisions have 
helped ensure greater transparency and accountability in the U.S. 
Congress. But we must do more, and we will in these coming days.
  As the ranking member of the Rules and Administration Committee, with 
jurisdiction over elements of this bill that affect the treatment and 
obligations of Members of Congress, I have worked with my good friend, 
Chairman Lott, and committee colleagues on both sides to craft a bill 
on issues within our jurisdiction. That bill has now been married on 
the floor with legislation from the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Maine and 
the ranking member from my home State of Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman. These bills address the Lobbying Disclosure Act changes 
within its jurisdiction.
  I hope ultimately we can craft an omnibus bill that will command 
broad bipartisan support and will be signed into law by President Bush. 
I think we

[[Page 2677]]

have already come a ways in that direction. I have appreciated the 
cooperative posture of Chairman Lott in developing this measure which 
was reported unanimously, as I mentioned earlier, by the Rules 
Committee. There were a number of amendments offered in the committee 
to strengthen the measure, and some were accepted and some rejected.
  My colleague went down this list, but it is important that my 
colleagues know what we were able to include. I mention some of the 
reforms here: the ban on gifts from lobbyists, the requirements of 
additional reporting on meals as well. I might point out to my 
colleague from Mississippi, I suspect we may have already in effect, 
just established a ban on meals. Looking at the language in our own 
committee, the idea that people are going to be reporting every few 
days a $20 meal--I suspect most may decide it is not worth going 
through that. In fact, I may offer, at some point, to just make that a 
total ban on the meals altogether and avoid going through the process 
of having to list them on the Internet, which is what in effect we have 
accomplished in that provision of the bill.
  The bill would also prohibit travel paid for by lobbyists and require 
prior approval of travel by the Ethics Committee. The bill requires for 
the very first time the disclosure of earmarks in bills, both 
appropriations bills and authorizing bills, and that imposes some 
complications, clearly, because an earmark authorizing bill may not be 
as clearly identifiable as one on an appropriations bill. In an 
appropriations bill you talk about Pascagoula, we talked about New 
London, CT. In an authorizing or tax bill it may describe ``some 
business that employs a certain number of people located above the 
Mason-Dixon line'' or something else. You would have to hire a scout or 
someone to go out and identify the specific entity that is being 
benefitted by that earmark. I suspect we are going to hear some 
conversation from our colleagues about how we are going to have to 
tighten it up. But the point the Senator from Mississippi was making in 
the Committee is this ought not be just appropriations matters. It 
ought to cover the spectrum where people parachute in a provision, 
particularly in a conference report, that had been neither considered 
by the House nor the Senate that ends up mysteriously in a bill.
  If you try to take them out of that bill, by the way, when it comes 
back to the Senate, the entire bill in which they are located falls. 
None of us necessarily wants that to occur. Therefore a lot of these 
provisions have stayed in over the years. This is the reform being 
talked about here.
  Our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, played a very 
critical role, with Senator Lott, in drafting the provisions that 
incorporated the Rules Committee bill. I think most Members believe if 
the matter was not in the House or Senate and ends up in the conference 
report, that ought to be subject to a point of order and come out of 
the bill. While we may disagree on this point--I have heard my 
colleagues speak eloquently about it--we should be making sure the 
point of order would prevail so you don't have just a simple majority 
but require a supermajority vote to allow that to occur.
  If it is that important, if the Member believes he had to put it in--
and there may be such circumstances, by the way then the supermajority 
vote is appropriate. We have been around long enough to know what 
happens. We will pass an appropriations bill here, the House will do 
it, and then some event will occur, a hurricane, and then all of a 
sudden that is the only bill moving. So you want to put something in 
the bill. If it is on that level, then I suspect a supermajority of my 
colleagues will approve it. Nonetheless, real efforts are being made 
and our Rules Committee bill certainly dealt with that.
  We also include a new point of order against the out-of-scope 
provisions. I mentioned that already. The bill would also require 
conference reports to be available 24 hours prior to the consideration 
on the Internet.
  Again, some of these conference reports are mammoth. They would make 
``War and Peace'' look like light reading when you see them. So having 
them for 24 hours is certainly going to be of some help.
  It may shock Members or others to find out that these bills in many 
cases were not even printed at all. In some cases I remember over the 
years when we actually considered them. Nonetheless, I think that is a 
good step forward as well.
  We eliminate floor privileges for former Members, officers, and 
Speakers of the House if they become lobbyists. It may be somewhat of a 
fine point, a piece of trivia. Members may not know this. Former House 
Members are not allowed on the Senate floor, but a former Speaker of 
the House is. That is the one former Member who is allowed in this 
Chamber. Most of our former colleagues certainly are not lobbyists, and 
those Members who have come back here do so infrequently, and it is 
always a pleasure to see them. But if you are a lobbyist, that raises a 
concern. I think the perception is such that we ought to keep people 
off the floor while they are engaged in that business--except under 
very special circumstances.
  We require the disclosure of employment negotiations by Members and 
their staff prior to their departure from the Congress--again, 
something that I think is a good step forward. We also make it clear 
that efforts to influence employment practices of private entities on 
the basis of partisan considerations are a violation of the Senate 
rules. Again, this is going back to the so-called K Street project.
  My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, raised this issue. There 
are already existing laws in the Criminal Code which prohibit certain 
of these activities. But my colleagues on the committee felt if it is 
already existing law we ought to make it clear, as well, that part of 
the rules of this place ought to be such that you cannot negotiate, on 
the basis of partisan politics, employment for people. I congratulate 
my colleague from Illinois for offering this language to address the K 
Street project.
  Finally, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska offered an amendment, which 
was adopted, expressing the sense of the Senate that restrictions 
should apply to the executive and judicial branches as well. My hope 
would be we would do that.
  My colleague from Mississippi has gone over a lot of this. The point 
being, we had an underlying bill. There were amendments offered. We 
strengthened the bill. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good 
bill. It is a major step forward. I think, with the efforts made with 
the Homeland Security bill under the leadership of Senator Collins, we 
made a major step forward.
  I anticipate some of those amendments that were rejected in our 
committee or ruled out of order may by offered on the floor. I may 
offer one or two of those amendments myself.
  The most comprehensive amendment offered in Committee was one I 
offered on behalf of the Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, which took 
key elements of the sweeping reform bill he developed in consultation 
with our Caucus, the Honest Leadership Act. That bill has served to 
help frame this debate thus far, and set a standard for real reform. It 
was rejected by the Committee on a party-line vote, which I regret, but 
some of its provisions were eventually adopted in Committee.
  I know that additional key elements of this measure will be offered 
by various colleagues in the coming days. I suspect there will be some 
amendments to the government affairs committee portion of this bill, 
too, some of which were rejected in Committee, some withheld for the 
Floor debate.
  That is at it should be. Many Members will have ideas to improve the 
bill here on the Floor, and I am committed to working with colleagues 
on our side to ensure their ideas get a full and fair hearing and, 
where necessary, a vote. Although the combined rules/government affairs 
committee bill offers a good framework, it is clear that the bill can 
and should be improved.
  Efforts to strengthen this bill will be the focus of amendments by 
Members

[[Page 2678]]

on our side going forward, both here on the Floor and in conference.
  I won't try to summarize in detail what is in the new bill, which 
merges the provisions of the Rules Committee and Government Affairs 
bills. Our distinguished colleagues on the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee Senator Collins, Chair of the committee, 
and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman will be describing 
the provisions of their bill in detail. I ask consent that a brief 
section-by-section summary of the Rules Committee provisions be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DODD. The Rules Committee bill deals with those issues governing 
conduct of Members, as per our jurisdiction. The bill includes reform 
of the gift rule to prohibit gifts from lobbyists. The Rules Committee-
reported bill exempts meals from this prohibition, but does require 
that members and staff disclose any meals paid for by lobbyists, 
according to existing dollar limits.
  This provision does not go far enough, in my opinion. While I 
recognize that much business is transacted over meals, members and 
staff can afford to pay for their meals at such meetings. If we are 
taking the step of banning coffee cups and candy from lobbyists, we 
should also ban the coffee and desserts.
  Finally, let me say a few things about what I think is the elephant 
in the room on reform efforts. And that is the need to enact 
comprehensive reforms of the way we organize and finance campaigns in 
this country.
  As I have said, gift and lobby reforms do matter, and are important. 
But while it is clear serious reform of the way some in Congress and 
their lobbying allies do business is needed, these changes alone won't 
address the core problem: the need for campaign finance reform which 
breaks once and for all the link between legislative favor-seekers and 
the free flow of inadequately regulated, special interest private 
money.
  This is a much more significant issue than lobbying, gift and travel 
rules, or procedural reforms on earmarks and conference procedures and 
reports.
  As my colleagues know, under current controlling Supreme Court 
precedents, including its landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 
comprehensive reform can be accomplished either through full or partial 
public funding in return for a voluntary agreement by candidates to 
abide by spending limits. Failing that, an amendment to the 
Constitution to enable Congress and the States to impose mandatory 
spending limits is needed. The idea that we are going to adopt a 
constitutional amendment is remote at best.
  I have fond memories of our former colleague from South Carolina, 
Senator Hollings, eloquently, year after year after year, beseeching 
this institution to adopt a constitutional amendment that would, I 
think, say something as simple as: For the purpose of Federal 
elections, money is not speech. I think that was the entire language of 
the amendment, or something like that.
  I supported him on a couple of occasions because of the simplicity of 
us being able to regulate this without having to go to the alternative 
route, which is what we are going to be left with if we want some 
control, and that is public financing.
  Some States have done that. Jody Rell, my Republican Governor, 
offered the language in Connecticut, adopted by the Democrat-controlled 
legislature. The State of Arizona has done it. The State of New Jersey, 
I think, has done some as well. So it is not without precedent, and it 
is the only other alternative we have, without amendment to the 
Constitution, to make an effort to try to reduce the kind of campaign 
spending problems we have.
  My preferred approach would include a combination of public funding, 
free or reduced media time, spending limits, and other key reforms. 
Others will have different views and approaches. I appreciate that 
Chairman Lott has recently responded positively to my urging of a 
hearing in our Committee on comprehensive campaign reform.
  I hope this will be the first step in a longer process of developing 
a comprehensive reform bill, although it may be difficult to actually 
enact such reform in this election year. It took us years to enact the 
McCain-Feingold law. Hopefully, it will not take as long to enact a 
more comprehensive bill for public financing.
  But let me offer a caution on this point. While I am equally 
committed to seeing Congress act to respond to the lobbying scandals of 
recent months and address the role of special interest and lobbyist 
money in campaigns, I believe we must move these reforms and campaign 
finance reforms on separate and independent tracks.
  Real campaign finance reform is more complex than reform of lobbying 
rules. We must not slow lobbying reform by tacking on unrelated 
campaign finance measures, which many on both sides would see as a 
poison pill.
  Chairman Lott and I had a sort of tacit agreement that we would work 
to keep such campaign finance provisions off this bill in Committee. I 
would hope we can adopt the same approach throughout this process.
  I suspect that will be difficult to achieve, since there will be 
those who seek to use this bill for partisan advantage. But I urge my 
colleagues, in the interest of enacting bipartisan lobbying reform, 
that we keep this bill relatively free of campaign finance provisions 
like 527 organization reform, tribal contribution changes, and others.
  For myself, I think there is a real risk of weighing down this bill 
with so many campaign finance amendments that we will effectively kill 
it. I hope that does not happen, and I urge my colleagues to withhold 
campaign finance-related amendments until we get to a more appropriate 
vehicle for them to offer their ideas.
  Let us hope we can make some progress on the campaign finance front. 
But I appeal to my colleagues on both sides, let us agree to do it 
separately from this bill, since adding these provisions could kill the 
very legislation that brings so many of us together.
  Eventually, real campaign finance reform must address not just 
congressional campaigns but also the urgent need to renew and repair 
our Presidential public funding system as well, which has served 
Democratic and Republican candidates--and all Americans--for 25 years.
  Some of us have pressed for comprehensive campaign reform for years. 
Current scandals offer a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address 
this issue in ways which both meet public demands for reform and the 
tests laid out by the Supreme Court since the Buckley decision.
  The American public is way ahead of us on this issue. Too many people 
believe the interests of average voters are usurped by the money and 
influence of lobbyists, powerful individuals, corporations, and 
interest groups. Too many believe their voices go unheard, drowned out 
by the din of special interest favor seekers.
  Our system derives its legitimacy from the consent of those we 
govern. That is put at risk if the governed lose faith in the system's 
fundamental fairness and its capacity to respond to the most basic 
needs of our society because narrow special interests hold sway over 
the public interest.
  Most Americans would agree that the price of funding campaigns with 
clean money--so-called ``disinterested'' mon-
ey--is a small price to pay to restore the confidence in our system. 
Comprehensive campaign finance reform, along with efforts to address 
the recent lobbying scandals, is necessary to return control of the 
process to the people to whom it belongs. That is what government of 
the people, by the people, and for the people has meant for over 200 
years.
  So, I end where I began, that is, with the concern about the 
confidence of Americans in Congress, our credibility, and the 
credibility of the legislative process being at stake. Let us not fool 
ourselves that these issues will ultimately be resolved without a 
fundamental overhaul of our campaign finances. I know when we 
eventually

[[Page 2679]]

have this debate, the same tired arguments we have heard year after 
year will be trotted out in defense of the current system: Citizen 
funding is ``welfare for politicians''; we spend more on toilet paper 
than we do on campaigns; and political money equals speech.
  That is ridiculous.
  Some will argue that we must not curtail the first amendment rights 
of citizens, including the wealthiest Americans, to engage in the 
political process. I say let us have that debate. I welcome it.
  I think most Americans would agree that the price of public funding 
of campaigns with clean money, uninterested money, is a small price to 
pay to restore that confidence in our political process, and to return 
control of that process to the governed. It is time for the Senate to 
come forward with fresh, bipartisan ideas on how we finance our 
campaigns.
  I thank the majority and minority leaders and the Chairs and ranking 
member of both of these committees for their courtesies in bringing 
this legislation forward. I certainly look forward to working with my 
colleagues over the next several days to conclude this process with a 
sound, strong piece of legislation.
  We are here because of scandals that have wracked this town over the 
last number of days and weeks. We need to try to address those issues 
with this legislation. I believe we can.
  Again, my compliments to my friend and colleague from Mississippi for 
his leadership, to Senator Collins of Maine, my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and the respective members of these two 
committees--and to Tim Johnson and George Voinovich for the wonderful 
job they have done as leaders of our Ethics Committee in this body over 
the years.
  With that, I yield the floor. I hope the chairman will maybe make 
such a proposal, but I suggest that we are going to be looking for 
amendments quickly. We are prepared to have time agreements on these 
amendments to allow for an adequate discussion of the proposal, and 
votes, if they are so needed. But if you will let us know what they 
are, we will help move this process along.
  I want this debate to end this week. I think it can be done by 
Thursday. My goal is to have it done by Thursday. I ask the leaders to 
stay in session during the evenings, if we have to, to get the job 
finished. I hope that is not necessary.
  Let us get amendments offered. Let us know what is on your mind, and 
we will line it up and see if we can't pass this bill by the end of the 
day on Thursday.

                               Exhibit 1


  summary of s. 2349, rules committee-reported lobbying reform measure

       Reported unanimously 11-0 (with remaining 7 members voting 
     in favor by proxy)
       Sec. 1: Title: Legislative Transparency and Accountability 
     Act of 2006
       Sec. 2: Out of Scope Matters in Conference Reports--
       provides for a point of order to be made against individual 
     offending provisions, rather than the entire conference 
     report;
       if the point of order is sustained, the Senate will recede 
     and concur with a further amendment (debatable question), 
     which if agreed to, shall return the bill to the House for 
     its concurrence;
       provides that the point of order may be waived by a vote of 
     3/5 of the members (duly chosen and sworn) and that any 
     appeal of a ruling of the Chair also requires a 3/5 vote to 
     overturn.
       Sec. 3: Earmarks (as amended by Sen. Feinstein)--
       creates a new Rules XLIV on earmarks;
       defines an earmark to be a provision that specifies the 
     identity of a non-Federal entity to receive assistance and 
     the amount of the assistance, with assistance defined as 
     being budget authority, contract authority, loan authority, 
     and other expenditures, tax expenditures, or other revenue 
     items;
       requires that all earmarks in any Senate bill, Senate 
     amendment, or conference report, including an appropriation 
     bill, revenue bill, and authorization bill, be identified by 
     Member proposing the earmark and an explanation of the 
     essential governmental purpose of the earmark; and
       publicly disclose all earmarks on the Internet for 24 hours 
     prior to consideration.
       Sec. 4: Available of Conference Reports on the Internet--
       amends Rules XXVIII to require that a conference report 
     must be publicly available on the Internet for 24 hours prior 
     to consideration;
       requires the Secretary of the Senate to develop an website 
     for such purpose.
       Sec. 5: Elimination of Floor Privileges--
       amends Rule XXIII to eliminate floor privileges for an ex-
     Senator, ex-Officer, and ex-Speaker of the House who is a 
     registered lobbyist, foreign agent, or someone who is in the 
     employ or representative of any party or organization for the 
     purpose of influencing the passage or defeat or amendment of 
     any legislative proposal;
       allows the Rules Committee to provide regulations on 
     exceptions for the rule for ceremonial functions.
       Sec. 6: Ban on Gifts From Lobbyists--
       amends Rule XXXV to ban gifts from a registered lobbyists 
     or foreign agent;
       EXCEPT for meals, which are allowed, under the current 
     dollar amount limits, but must be publicly disclosed on a 
     Member's website within 15 days of the meal.
       Sec. 7: Travel Restrictions and Disclosure--
       amends Rule XXXV to prohibit transportation or lodging to 
     be paid for by a registered lobbyist or foreign agent;
       require advance approval for the trip by the Ethics 
     Committee;
       require members to submit a certification to the Ethics 
     Committee, provided by the sponsor of the trip, certifying 
     that: the trip was not paid in whole or in part by a 
     registered lobbyist or foreign agent and the sponsor did not 
     accept funds from a registered lobbyist or foreign agent 
     specifically earmarked for this purpose;
       require members to submit to the Ethics Committee, 
     certifying: a detailed itinerary of the trip; a determination 
     that the trip is primarily educational; is consistent with 
     the official duties of the Member, officer, employee; does 
     not create an appearance of use of public office for private 
     gain; and has a minimal or no recreation component;
       30 days after completion of travel, the member, officer, or 
     employee must file with Ethics Committee and the Secretary of 
     the Senate a description of the meetings and events attended, 
     the names of registered lobbyists who accompanied the member, 
     officer, or employee (unless such disclosure would jeopardize 
     the safety of the individual or adversely affect national 
     security); and post the information on the Member's website;
       amend Rule XXXV to require the disclosure of any flight on 
     a non-commercial aircraft, excluding a flight on an aircraft 
     owned, operating, or leased by a government entity taken in 
     connection with the duties of the member, officer or 
     employee;
       report to the Secretary of the Senate, the date, 
     destination, and owner or lessee of the aircraft, purpose of 
     the trip, and persons on the trip (excluding the pilot);
       amend FECA to require disclosure of similar information for 
     flights taken by a candidate (except for the President or 
     Vice President) during the reporting period;
       amend Rule XXXV to require the Secretary of the Senate to 
     publicly disclose all filings and require Members to post 
     such filings on their official website within 30 days of 
     travel.
       Sec. 8: Post Employment Restrictions--
       amend Rule XXXVII to prohibit highly compensated employees 
     from lobbying the entire Senate, effective 60 days after 
     enactment.
       Sec. 9: Public Disclosure by Member of Employment 
     Negotiations--
       amend Rule XXXVII to require that a Member shall not 
     directly negotiate prospective private employment until after 
     the election for his or her successor has been held, UNLESS 
     such Member files a statement with the Secretary of the 
     Senate, for public disclosure, regarding such negotiations 
     within 3 business days, including the name of the private 
     entity(ties) and the date negotiations commenced.
       Sec. 10: Prohibit Official Contract by a Lobbyist Spouse or 
     Immediate Family of Member--
       amend Rule XXXVII to prohibit a spouse or immediate family 
     member of a Member who is a registered lobbyist, or is 
     employed or retained by a registered lobbyist to influence 
     legislation, from having official contact with the personal, 
     committee, or leadership staff of that Member;
       immediate family member means son, daughter, stepson, 
     stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, 
     stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, 
     brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the Member.
       Sec. 11: Influencing Hiring Decisions (Sen. Durbin's 
     amendment)--
       amend Rule XLIII to prohibit a Member from taking, 
     withholding, or offering or threatening to take or withhold 
     an official act or the official act of another with the 
     intent of influencing on the basis of partisan political 
     affiliation an employment decision or practice of a private 
     entity.
       Sec. 12: Sense-of-the-Senate on Executive and Judicial 
     Branch Employees (Sen. Nelson's)--
       express the sense-of-the-Senate that any applicable 
     restrictions on Congressional branch employees should apply 
     to the Executive and Judicial branches.
       Sec. 13: Effective Date: date of enactment, except as 
     otherwise provided.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Maine.

[[Page 2680]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by applauding both Senator 
Dodd and Senator Lott for their work on the membership part of this 
bill, and for the outstanding statements explaining the provisions and 
urging us to act.
  Senator Lott mentioned that the Rules Committee bill was reported 
unanimously, and that the bill that came out of our Homeland Security 
Committee was reported with only one dissenting vote. That is a 
remarkable show of bipartisanship. But to my colleagues in the Senate, 
it is probably more remarkable to see two Senate committees working 
together very carefully, outlining the jurisdiction of each committee 
and working in concert to produce a comprehensive and well-balanced 
piece of legislation.
  Title I of this bill is the Rules Committee bill; title II is the 
Homeland Security bill.
  Today the Senate begins consideration of the first significant 
lobbying reform legislation in a decade. The bills we are debating 
today and over the course of this week represent the good work of their 
sponsors, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman--and Senator Lott and 
Senator Dodd as well--and the hard work of the two committees I have 
mentioned.
  The committee I am privileged to chair, the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, marked up the Lieberman bill this past 
Thursday. The committee reported out the measure, as I mentioned, on a 
13-to-1 vote.
  The issue we take up today is serious, and it is pressing. Recent 
scandals involving Jack Abramoff and Representative Duke Cunningham 
have brought to light Congress's need to strengthen the laws and rules 
governing disclosure, and to ban practices that erode public confidence 
in the integrity of government decisions. That is what this debate is 
all about.
  We know that if we are to tackle the tough issues facing our country, 
whether it is entitlement reform or other vital issues, the public must 
have confidence that our decisions are not tainted by special interests 
and are not subject to undue influence.
  I want to emphasize that all of us here today recognize that 
lobbying, whether done on behalf of the business community and 
environmental organizations or children's advocacy groups or any other 
cause can provide us with very useful information that aids but does 
not dictate our decisionmaking process. Indeed, lobbying is a right 
guaranteed by our Constitution--the right to petition our government. 
But, unfortunately, today the image of lobbying often conjures up 
images of expensive paid vacations masquerading as factfinding trips, 
special access that the average citizen can never have, and undue 
influence that leads to tainted decisions. The corrosive effect of this 
image--and in a very few cases the reality on the public's confidence--
in the political process cannot be underestimated.
  I think it is also important to emphasize, however, that the vast 
majority of people in Washington, the vast majority of elected 
officials care deeply about their constituents and this country, and 
are making decisions which they believe are in the best interests of 
both. Nevertheless, we in Congress have an obligation to strengthen the 
crucial bond of trust between those of us in government and those whom 
government serves.
  At the committee hearing last month on lobbying reform, we heard from 
several of our colleagues. We heard from business and labor 
organizations that engage in lobbying. We heard from a representative 
of a lobbyist organization, and from public policy experts. I mention 
this because I want my colleagues to understand that we had a wide-
ranging hearing that reached out to people with various views on how we 
could reform our lobbying disclosure laws. The package before the 
Senate, the comprehensive package of bills, represents the culmination 
of what we have learned.
  Again, I thank Senators McCain and Lott for their leadership in the 
development of this bill, along with the ranking members of Homeland 
Security, Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd. We have crafted a 
bipartisan package.
  I also want to thank Senator Rick Santorum for convening a bipartisan 
working group to help us find some common ground on the principles that 
underlie both bills.
  Before describing the details of the bill we reported last Thursday, 
I want to point out that the committees addressed only those issues 
within our jurisdiction--the Lobbying Disclosure Act and the Ethics in 
Government Act, and congressional organization. But here on the floor 
we have married the two bills to produce a comprehensive package.
  Let me quickly run through some of the major provisions of what is 
now title II of the bill we are debating.
  The first section of this bill, title II, will enhance the lobbying 
disclosure provision. It will require quarterly filings rather than the 
present semiannual filing, and it ensures that the information is made 
available to the public on the Internet.
  To facilitate this effort, it specifies that lobbyists must submit 
their filings electronically. This will ensure that the public 
information is widely available on a more timely basis. So our goal 
here is to have an easily accessible, transparent, and searchable 
database available on the Internet so the public is fully aware and 
able to access these reports.
  To ensure timely disclosure, the substitute doubles the maximum 
penalty for noncompliance to $100,000.
  To increase public confidence and enforcement, the legislation 
requires disclosure of reports to the Justice Department for 
enforcement. The enhanced disclosures will make the process of lobbying 
far more transparent to the public.
  I note that the committee also adopted an amendment that would 
require the disclosure of so-called ``grassroots lobbying efforts.'' I 
did not support this amendment because of my concern that we don't want 
to chill any effort to encourage citizens to contact their members of 
Congress, but I nevertheless appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of 
the amendment--Senators Lieberman and Levin--to address some of the 
legitimate concerns and to craft it in a way that is far more focused 
than the original provisions in the underlying bill that was before our 
committee.
  Section B of what is now title II focuses on enforcement of 
congressional ethics. In some cases, there have been concerns about the 
enforcement effort.
  We have included provisions that will include auditing and oversight 
of lobbyists' disclosure filings by the comptroller general who will 
also provide recommendations on how compliance could be improved and to 
identify needed resources and authorities.
  This section of the bill would also provide for mandatory ethics 
training for Members of Congress and congressional staff. It also 
includes a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that there should be greater 
self-regulation within the lobbying community. I am thinking of the 
kinds of self-regulatory organizations--SROs, as they are often 
called--such as the securities industry, for example, employs.
  Subtitle C of our bill, now title II, addresses the revolving-door 
problem, whereby Members of Congress and high-ranking staff leave 
Government for jobs focused on the institution they had once served in. 
We made essentially two changes in this provision of the law.
  First, we doubled the cooling-off period that applies to Members of 
Congress who become lobbyists. We require a 2-year cooling-off period 
rather than the 1-year that is in current law. The second important 
change we make is we prohibit those high-ranking former congressional 
staffers from lobbying the entire Senate--not just the office in which 
they once worked. Those are two significant provisions strengthening 
the revolving-door provisions of the bill that will help to promote 
public confidence in the integrity of decisions by ensuring there is 
not undue special access by people who have inside information. Those 
are important provisions.

[[Page 2681]]

  I point out in response to a comment made by Senator Dodd that we do 
extend these provisions to high-ranking members of the executive branch 
who are covered now by the revolving-door provisions of the Ethics in 
Government Act.
  The next subtitle of the bill creates a commission to strengthen 
confidence in Congress. This is a proposal included at the 
recommendation of my friend and colleague, Senator Norm Coleman. It 
would establish a commission to review and make some additional 
recommendations if needed. The commission would report its initial 
findings and recommendation to Congress by July 1, 2006. This is not a 
big, longstanding commission. It is a commission that is expected to 
act quickly, where we take a look at the whole area and report back.
  I am very proud of the hard work of the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs on this issue. We have produced a 
strong bill, a strong bill that significantly increases the disclosure, 
that toughens the revolving-door provisions, and that will make a real 
difference in increasing the oversight of ethics and lobbying.
  However, we need to take another look at a provision that did not get 
included in the bill that was included in the mark that Senator 
Lieberman and I put forward but was deleted as a result of an 
amendment. That is a provision to create an Office of Public Integrity 
within the congressional branch. I will be talking more about that 
later, but let me say that proposal by no means is an indication of 
disrespect for or lack of appreciation of the Senate Ethics Committee. 
We know the Senate Ethics Committee has a very difficult job and does a 
good job. The members who serve on it are individuals of great 
integrity. It address a problem of perception.
  It is difficult for the public to trust us to set our own rules, 
investigate violations, act as jury and judge--which is what the 
current system is now. So we carefully crafted a proposal intended to 
strike a better balance while still recognizing and maintaining the 
preeminent role of the Ethics Committee. Regrettably, there was a lot 
of confusion about this provision in committee because it resembles a 
provision that has been introduced on the House side. But Senator 
Lieberman and I modified that provision and came up with our own 
proposal that ensured that the Ethics Committee was involved in every 
step of the process. We will have a further debate on that issue, but I 
raise it now for the benefit of my colleagues.
  Again, we can make a real difference by passing this bill which 
marries the two bills that were reported by the Rules Committee and the 
Homeland Security Committee. The Senate has a very important 
opportunity to make Government more transparent and more accountable. 
At the end of the day, the public is going to review this legislation 
and ask one question: Does it promote more public trust and confidence 
in the decisions we make? I hope when we have the final vote on this 
bill, we will see the same kind of strong, bipartisan support the 
legislation enjoyed in both the rules and the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask I be permitted to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2370 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the bipartisan Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act which was 
reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee last Thursday and which forms a significant part of the 
combined Homeland Security Rules Committee bill that we are starting to 
consider today.
  It is a pleasure to join in an unusual foursome, co-managing these 
two bills. It is always a pleasure to work with Senator Lott and 
Senator Dodd of the Rules Committee. And I am also delighted to work 
with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins.
  With these two bills we now have the opportunity to vote on what I 
believe is the most significant lobbying and ethics reform in a 
generation. That means we in Congress now have a once in a generation 
opportunity to help restore our tattered reputation with the American 
public by moving swiftly and strongly to enact these proposals into 
law.
  By ensuring full transparency for the legislative process and those 
who work within it, this legislation will directly answer many of the 
questions that have been raised about the relationship between Members 
of Congress and lobbyists, about the role of money in public debate and 
deliberations, and about whether results in Washington go to the 
highest bidder or to the greatest public good.
  This bill draws back the curtain to let the sun shine directly and 
brightly on the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship for all to see, clearly 
and easily.
  I thank my good friends, colleagues, and partners, Senators McCain 
and Collins, for the work they have done to bring the legislation to 
the Senate. Senator McCain, along with his Committee on Indian Affairs, 
and its ranking member, Senator Byron Dorgan, conducted a hard-hitting 
investigation into the activities of the disgraced lobbyist, Jack 
Abramoff, helping to expose his criminal activities--in particular, his 
odious exploitation of Indian tribes. On the basis of that 
investigation, Senator McCain then introduced the Lobbyist Transparency 
and Accountability Act, which I proudly cosponsored. Then Chairman 
Collins took up the banner in our committee and, based on Senator 
McCain's bill, we drafted legislation and quickly brought it before the 
committee for markup. The bill we debate today is the product of those 
efforts.
  Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Senator Barack Obama of 
Illinois have played critical leadership roles in pushing reform 
forward by introducing very strong legislation, the Honest Leadership 
Act, which earned the support of 41 Members of the Senate and really 
helped lay the groundwork for us here today. The backing of virtually 
the entire Democratic caucus helped move this significant legislation 
to the floor, and I am proud of that. In fact, this proposal from our 
committee contains most of the proposals laid out in the Honest 
Leadership Act. I look forward to supporting amendments to restore 
other provisions of the Honest Leadership Act that were left out of the 
legislation before us today.
  Finally, thanks to Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who history 
will note was the first in this 2-year session to introduce lobbying 
reform legislation. He did it last year. Senator Feingold is always a 
reliable ally when it comes to raising the public interest above 
special interests.
  The abuses to which these bills respond, I want to stress, are the 
exception to the rule. Almost always lobbyists comply with the law and 
provide Congress with valuable knowledge and expertise. Whether they 
represent corporations, unions, trade associations or nonprofits, or 
the public interest groups that have actually lobbied us to pass this 
legislation, lobbyists are instrumental to the work that goes on here 
on Capitol Hill.
  The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of such work when they 
enshrined, in the very first amendment to our Constitution, the right 
of all people ``to petition the government for redress of grievances.'' 
We have to remember this when we legislate in this critically important 
and constitutionally elevated area. Lobbyists and the people they 
represent are exercising a constitutional right, and we have to, 
therefore, be careful, as we have been in this bill, to respect that 
right.
  Nothing in the bill that has come out of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, or the Rules Committee, for that 
matter, improperly intrudes on the people's right to be represented in 
Washington. But

[[Page 2682]]

there is an equivalent right of the public to a functioning form of 
government, and that must also be respected.
  That is precisely what our bill does, by building on previous efforts 
in this area. The Supreme Court, long ago, made clear that the first 
amendment's guarantee of the right to petition the Government did not 
confer a right to do so in secret. In the 1954 case of United States v. 
Harris, the Court upheld the constitutionality of lobbying disclosure 
requirements and said those requirements were consistent with the first 
amendment. Let me read a passage from that decision:

       Present day legislative complexities are such that 
     individual members of Congress cannot be expected to explore 
     the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. 
     Yet the full realization of the American ideal of government 
     by elected representatives depends to no small extent on 
     their ability to properly evaluate such pressures. Otherwise, 
     the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned out by 
     the voice of the special interest groups seeking favored 
     treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public 
     weal. This is the evil to which the Lobbying Act was designed 
     to help prevent.

  Those words could not be truer today, when millions and millions of 
Americans, whether they realize it, are represented in our Nation's 
capital in some way by lobbyists, not just by those of us who are 
privileged to have been elected as Members of Congress. Whether they 
are teachers or steel workers, whether they are law enforcement 
officers or seniors, whether they are veterans or veterinarians, small 
business owners or big business executives--and the list of categories 
in this richly and extraordinarily pluralistic society could go on--
people from all walks of American life--millions and millions of them--
have paid representation in this city. That is lobbying.
  In fact, as I suggested before, some of the strongest proponents of 
lobbying reform are registered lobbyists themselves, lobbying Congress 
to enact reforms such as those we are discussing today for the honor of 
their profession and, I might say, for the honor of Congress.
  The number of lobbyists in Washington has exploded over the last 
decade. These are interesting numbers. The Congressional Research 
Service reported that over 30,000 people were registered as lobbyists 
in 2004, and that is an 86-percent increase over the number of 
registered lobbyists in 2000. The industry receives and spends enormous 
sums of money.
  According to the Center for Public Integrity, $3 billion--$3 
billion--was spent on lobbying activities in 2004. That is the last 
full year for which records are available. And that is double the sum 
that was spent 6 years before. That is big money. Add to these numbers 
the recent scandals and the perception too many Americans have of 
business in Washington as cash exchanging hands under tables or in back 
room deals, and we have a public cynicism that weighs down on this 
institution of ours and lobbying as a profession. It is a reality we 
have to recognize. And in these two measures brought before this 
Chamber by these two committees, we have a way to lift that weight.
  So we find ourselves in a place where the current lobbying disclosure 
requirements are self-evidently inadequate, and ethics rules governing 
Members' interactions with lobbyists need to be tightened, especially 
with respect to gifts from lobbyists.
  The Washington Post last December said that more than 80 Members of 
Congress and their staff were listed as having appeared to have 
accepted entertainment from a particular company, BellSouth, which 
exceeded congressional gift limits. Public knowledge of gifts exceeding 
the limits is rare because no disclosure requirements exist at this 
point. We are on a kind of honor system. And these provisions would 
change that.
  So let me take a moment or two to talk about the measure that is 
before us to deal with these shortcomings, not just to respond to the 
cynicism brought on by the latest lobbying scandal--the Abramoff 
scandal--but to respond thoughtfully to shortcomings in the law and the 
rules as they exist, and to respond to deficiencies identified by the 
members of the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  The first thing the legislation from our committee would do is bring 
the lawmaker-lobbyist relationship into the age of the Internet. We 
mandate that lobbyist disclosure statements be made publicly available 
on a searchable Internet database, linked to the Federal Election 
Commission database of campaign contributions. We also require that 
disclosures be made quarterly instead of semiannually, as is now the 
case. Both of those measures will add significantly to the public's 
ability to monitor lobbyist-lawmaker interactions.
  When combined with the Rules Committee's bill, we virtually see the 
elimination of gifts from lobbyists to Members of Congress and ensure 
that those small number that still are possible are fully disclosed. 
The Rules Committee bill bans all gifts, other than meals, from 
lobbyists to Members of Congress and their staff and requires Members 
to disclose on their Web sites any meals they do consume through the 
hospitality of a lobbyist. We, in turn, through our committee, have 
provided what might be called the ``belt'' to the Rules Committee's 
``suspenders'' by ensuring that lobbyists must, for the first time, 
disclose all gifts over $20.
  So the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee can 
regulate by law the behavior of lobbyists. The Rules Committee 
obviously regulates the Members of the Senate. These two bills together 
will ensure a very significant curtailment of these gifts and clear 
knowledge for the public for those gifts that are still given--
remembering that the current rules prohibits any Member from accepting 
gifts worth more than $100 a year from a lobbyist. But disclosure has 
not been required up until this time for our gift rules.
  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee bill will 
increase transparency in a number of other ways. Lobbyists will, for 
the first time, have to disclose when they play any role in arranging 
travel for Members of Congress and executive branch officials. 
Lobbyists would have to disclose the purpose and itinerary of any 
trips, itemize expenses, and disclose all lobbyists and Members in the 
traveling party.
  Again, this is a reaction to the notorious trips sponsored by Mr. 
Abramoff. He did not necessarily pay for those trips, but he was 
clearly organizing them and using other entities to pay for them, while 
avoiding the kind of detailed disclosure that our proposal would 
require.
  We also require more disclosure about lobbyists' political campaign 
activities. Contribution of $200 or more to candidates, leadership PACs 
or parties--as well as fundraising events hosted or sponsored by 
lobbyists--would have to be reported on an annual basis under the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act. These disclosures are now available on FEC 
databases, but the data base is not easy to search. Chairman Collins 
and I believe this additional reporting requirement is a minimal 
requirement justified by the additional public disclosure.
  To those who had concerns that the initial formulation of this 
provision unfairly forced employees who are registered lobbyists to 
tell their employers who they gave campaign contributions to, thus 
perhaps chilling their constitutional rights, let me assure you that 
the committee heard your concerns and responded. We no longer require 
that disclosure through employers but, instead, mandate direct 
disclosure from each lobbyist. We also make clear that the 
contributions that must be disclosed are the same ones already provided 
by campaigns to the FEC.
  Our proposal takes another step forward to require lobbyists to 
disclose payments for events that honor Members of Congress or 
executive branch officials. We do not prohibit such contributions, but 
in the public interest we require that they be disclosed. This would 
include payments to organizations, such as charities, that are founded 
or controlled by Members of Congress.

[[Page 2683]]

  Our proposal would increase incentives to comply with the law by 
doubling the civil penalty for noncompliance under the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $100,000. Also, for the first time, we 
prohibit lobbyists, by statute, from providing gifts or travel that do 
not comply with congressional ethics rules. This is a critical reform 
because, until now, there has been nothing in the law to stop lobbyists 
from giving Members or staff gifts that skirt congressional limits, as 
long as the Members and staff were willing to accept them. That is, the 
rules govern the behavior of Members and staff, but there is currently 
no law regarding the behavior of lobbyists. With this reform, lobbyists 
would continue that kind of behavior at their own, very serious legal 
peril.
  Our proposal would also make greater demands on those who move back 
and forth between public service and lobbying. To avoid conflicts of 
interest, we would increase from 1 year to 2 the amount of time a 
former Member of Congress or a former high-level executive branch 
official must wait before lobbying his or her former colleagues. For 
congressional staff, we expand the 1-year cooling-off period to bar 
lobbying not just of the staffer's former office but of the entire 
House of Congress in which the staffer worked. Again, if the revolving 
door spins more slowly, so too will abuses.
  I wish to take a few moments to address what has become a 
controversial portion of our legislation but, as Senator Collins 
indicated--though she did not support this amendment in committee--
should not be seen as quite that controversial. One may agree or 
disagree, but I want people to understand clearly what we have done. 
Our committee, on a good, strong bipartisan vote accepted in markup an 
amendment offered by Senator Levin and myself in direct response to the 
Abramoff scandal that ignited the reform drive that brings us together 
today. Mr. Abramoff directed his clients to pay millions of dollars, 
the record shows, to grassroots lobbying firms controlled by himself 
and his associate Michael Scanlon, fees that were then in large part 
directed back to Mr. Abramoff in the form of payments, fees--one might 
say kickbacks. I believe if disclosure requirements had been in place, 
Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon would not have been able to pull off this 
scam.
  In the past decade, orchestrated, paid-for, so-called grassroots 
campaigns have been a staple and important part of many lobbying 
campaigns. There is nothing wrong with this. The question is whether we 
ask for some minimal disclosure equal to the disclosure requirements on 
lobbyists other than grassroots lobbyists. Last year, for example, it 
was hard to miss the ads paid for by lobbyists urging voters to contact 
their Members of Congress to vote either for or against Social Security 
privatization. In the first 2 months of this year alone, 2006, 
candidates and interest groups have already spent over $92 million on 
television advertising. The nomination of Justice Alito, asbestos 
litigation reform, implementation of the Medicare Part D, and proposals 
related to telecommunications regulation all have generated massive 
media campaigns aimed at inspiring constituent calls, letters, and e-
mails to Members.
  Our proposal on this matter would, for the first time, require the 
disclosure of money received and spent by professional grassroots 
lobbying firms--that is, grassroots efforts paid for by lobbyists to 
generate major media campaigns, mass mailings, and large phone banks 
with the intent of influencing Members of Congress or the executive 
branch.
  Let me say that again because I want my colleagues particularly to be 
clear about what this provision does and does not do. It does not ban 
or restrict grassroots lobbying of any kind in any way. That would be 
wrong. Grassroots lobbying is another important way for people to get 
involved in the process and let us in Congress know how they feel. The 
provision merely requires--in order to inform the public and prevent 
the kinds of abuses that the record now shows Mr. Abramoff was involved 
in through grassroots lobbying firms--the disclosure of the amount of 
money spent on this type of lobbying when it is done in professional 
campaigns. The controversy over this provision is, in my opinion, 
unreasonable because our bill will not inhibit any grassroots lobbying 
in any way. In fact, Senator Levin and I took extra steps from the 
original proposal to ensure that our proposal applies only to the 
larger professional efforts involved in grassroots lobbying.
  For example, if the grassroots lobbying effort spends under $25,000 
per quarter--in other words, less than $100,000 a year--it will not 
have to report at all. They are exempt. Money spent on communications 
directed at an organization's own members, employees, officers, or 
shareholders is also exempt from disclosure. So, an organization could 
retain a firm to communicate with its own members around the country 
and that would not have to be disclosed. And 501 (c)(3) organizations 
that already report grassroots expenses to the IRS will be allowed to 
report that same number under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, minimizing 
any alleged paperwork or accounting burden on these organizations. And 
while this may be self-evident, we have added words in the amendment to 
make clear that reporting is not required for voluntary efforts by the 
general public to communicate their own views to Federal officials or 
encourage other members of the general public to do the same.
  Ten years ago, when Congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act, 
Senator Levin unsuccessfully fought for a grassroots lobbying 
disclosure provision. At that time he said such campaigns spend about 
$700 million per year. I would be surprised if that number hasn't at 
least doubled since then, and Congress and the public have no accurate 
picture of who is spending what to influence others to lobby us. 
Disclosure of paid grassroots lobbying is a long time past due.
  Let me stress again, the reform we are debating here does nothing to 
abridge the right of all the people to petition their government. Its 
purpose is simply to bring the grassroots lobbying community out of the 
shadows and to ask it to make the same simple disclosure that all other 
lobbyists are required to do--basically, two numbers: the amount of 
money received and the amount of money spent, nothing more and nothing 
less than all other lobbyists are required to disclose.
  During the markup in our Homeland Security Committee, some Senators 
and members of the committee asked whether the so-called 527 groups 
would be covered by this provision. The 527s are already required by 
law to disclose far greater amounts of information to either the IRS or 
the Federal Election Commission. The 527 groups are required, for 
example, to disclose the names of anyone who contributes more than $200 
a year, and they must state the purpose of any expenditure over $500. 
Let's put to rest the notion that we are doing something about 527 
groups here, because we already require far more of them than we are 
asking of grassroots lobbyists.
  Another question raised in the committee was about whether a 
broadcaster, in particular a leader of a religious group, would be 
subject to grassroots disclosure requirements for urging his or her 
audience on radio or television to write or call Members of Congress 
about a particular issue. Of course not. This bill requires disclosure 
only by paid lobbyists acting on behalf of a client.
  I have described what I think are very powerful provisions in this 
legislation to increase disclosure, to increase the transparency of the 
lobbyist-lawmaker relationship, and to slow down the revolving door 
between government service and K Street. I have heard some people say 
this legislation is not strong enough because our committee did strike 
from the bill a proposal Chairman Collins and I made for an Office of 
Public Integrity that would have been a new, independent repository of 
disclosure statements, with the power to investigate complaints and 
issue subpoenas. I want to talk about that in a moment. The fact is, 
even without that provision, which I still support,

[[Page 2684]]

this is a very strong, transformational lobbying reform proposal.
  The enforcement provision Senator Collins and I advocated in the 
committee would have helped restore the confidence of the American 
people. The ethics process, frankly, in the other body of Congress has 
been dysfunctional. I do believe we have a strong Ethics Committee in 
the Senate, and that is not the reason we put forth our proposal. We 
offered our proposal to increase the staff and professional support of 
our Ethics Committee and to create an independent place where 
investigations of complaints can be made so the public has no lingering 
suspicion that the ethics regulation of Members of Congress involves 
self-protection. That is the purpose of our proposal.
  In addition to restoring public trust in the ability of Congress to 
police itself, the Office of Public Integrity that we proposed was 
designed to act as a monitor, reviewer, and watchdog of filings under 
the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Currently, lobbying disclosure forms are 
filed with the Secretary of the Senate. That office has fewer than 20 
people to review filings--and they work hard; this is not to criticize 
them at all--compared to the 400 employees of the Federal Election 
Commission, which many people believe is also understaffed.
  Here is the point: It is very hard for 20 people to adequately 
supervise and review the filings of over 30,000 lobbyists. That was 
another reason why Senator Collins and I submitted the Office of Public 
Integrity proposal. I believe this proposal is an important part of 
lobbying reform at this once-in-a-generation moment. We have put forth 
strong measures, in the bills reported by the Senate from the Committee 
on Rules and our committee, to enact increased disclosure, greater 
transparency, the virtual prohibition on gifts to Members of Congress, 
and elimination of any gifts without full disclosure. But I believe a 
better enforcement mechanism is a critical last component of true 
lobbying reform legislation. That is why some of us in the Senate will 
be offering amendments here on the floor along the lines of the 
proposal to create an Office of Public Integrity, which Chairman 
Collins and I offered in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee. We will put forth amendments to strengthen the enforcement 
mechanisms of our proposed reforms to make sure those reforms are 
enforced.
  I also intend to offer an amendment with Senator McCain and others to 
curb privately funded travel. Currently when a Member of Congress or a 
candidate for office uses a private plane instead of flying on a 
commercial flight, the ethics rules require a payment to the owner of 
the plane equivalent to a first-class commercial ticket price. Senator 
McCain and I and others believe that the current rule undervalues 
flights on noncommercial jets and provides an end-run on limitations on 
what corporations or individuals can contribute to Members or give us 
as gifts.
  We believe it is time to update our rules to close this loophole, to 
base payment on the fair market value of chartering a plane.
  I want to stress again, notwithstanding my intention to join with 
other colleagues on a few of these amendments that I believe will 
strengthen the measure, that the legislation before us from our 
committee and from the Rules Committee together present the Senate an 
opportunity to adopt a very strong bill, a bill with sharp teeth that I 
believe will reduce the influence of money in the legislative process 
and prevent the kinds of grotesque abuses to which Mr. Abramoff and 
Congressman Cunningham have now pleaded guilty. This legislation will 
not only shine sunlight on what we are doing here but will restore the 
balance of power where it belongs, in favor of the American people. I 
am confident that increased transparency, always described in this 
great democracy of ours as the disinfecting rays of sunshine, will 
discourage some of the abuses that have occurred. And when combined 
with the bill reported out of the Committee on Rules, we will be 
writing into law a near total ban on gifts.
  Thus, to the extent that lobbyists do confer gifts or arrange for 
travel for Members of Congress, our constituents will be able to follow 
the activities of those Members of Congress on the Internet and will, I 
am sure, be kept well informed of these movements by our free and 
industrious press.
  It has been said that information is power, not just knowledge. 
Information and, therefore, power is what we are providing the public 
in this legislation. These are dramatic and transformational steps that 
are included in both of these measures. I hope they will, together, 
give our constituents a renewed sense of faith in this institution. I 
urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the ranking member, the Senator 
from Connecticut, for his excellent statement and for his championship 
of this bill. He is a longtime champion of good government. It has been 
a great pleasure to work with him on this legislation.
  I see that the Senator from Ohio is in the Chamber. I believe he has 
a unanimous consent request to speak as in morning business. As one of 
the managers of the bill, I inform the Chair that I have no objection 
to that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeWine are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: We are still on the 
rules and lobby reform legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do feel a need to put some statement in 
the Record about the issue of public financing of campaigns that was 
raised by my distinguished colleague from the Rules Committee, Senator 
Dodd, earlier today. He talked about how he believes this is something 
we need to do, and he wanted to have some hearings in the Rules 
Committee on the public financing of campaigns issue, and I agreed that 
we would find a time to do that. It is always good to have a hearing 
and see how laws that are on the books are actually working or not 
working, so I will be glad to do that.
  I thank Senator Dodd and other members of the Rules Committee for the 
fact that we held the line. There were two or three amendments that 
were considered or were offered dealing with campaign finance law, and 
Senator Dodd spoke against them. I ruled them out of order, and then we 
went on. So it was a cooperative effort, once again, that I am very 
proud of.
  The day may come when we want to revisit campaign finance reform laws 
or the issue of public financing of campaigns, but this is not that 
day. I wish to make it clear that public financing of Senate and House 
races is totally a nonstarter as far as this Senator is concerned. 
Every year, the American people cast their vote on public financing 
with a resounding no. Nine out of ten Americans--90 percent--refuse to 
check off contributing to the Presidential election campaign fund. So 
what makes us think they would check off or contribute in some way 
through the Tax Code to our campaigns?
  Our campaign financing laws may not be the best. One of the most 
difficult things about running for the Congress is you have to get out 
and raise a lot of money because it costs a lot to buy time on 
television or radio or billboards and all that goes into a

[[Page 2685]]

campaign. So everybody complains about how much money it takes, but 
they expect you to get your message out there, and if you don't, you 
certainly won't get elected. But one thing I have always noticed is 
good candidates, men and women, all manage to raise enough money to get 
their message across.
  I still have faith in political entrepreneurs and people contributing 
to the candidate of their choice. But for us now to go to some sort of 
a checkoff scheme for the public financing of congressional races, I 
don't believe the American people are ready to do that. First of all, 
how would you do it? How would you fund Independents and libertarians? 
In my own race, I have a libertarian opponent this year, and we have 
Independents who are running. I know the answer to that: the two 
parties would squeeze them out. They wouldn't have a credible chance, 
really. But that is just one of many problems.
  In the 13 States that have checkoff schemes for public financing, and 
some of them were mentioned earlier today, participation has dropped 
from 20 percent to about 11 percent. That is nothing more than, in my 
opinion, welfare for politicians; one more thing that is expected to be 
controlled by, run by, funded by the Government, which is, after all, 
taxpayers' money. So I just want to say that I believe this is one of 
the all time worst ideas of the year.
  I fought for 4 years against the McCain-Feingold legislation, but 
eventually, when we temporarily lost our majority over here and we had 
Democratic leadership, BCRA, campaign finance reform, McCain-Feingold, 
was passed.
  My attitude was, look, we fought the good fight, we held it off for 
years, it finally passed, it is on the books, and it is the law. Let's 
at least see how it is going to work. It has only had one election 
cycle. I want to see how this system works.
  I have joined with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold in a 
bipartisan way saying: Well, wait a minute, we just barely got this 
thing done, let's see how it really works. I think it is going to be 
better than I thought it would in some respects and worse in others. 
For instance, what we have seen is that soft money that used to go to 
the parties, which I believe is where it should have gone, has oozed 
over into other areas.
  That is why the Rules Committee last year voted to do real campaign 
finance reform when we adopted the 527 reform bill. That bill has 
languished on the calendar ever since because for some reason we can't 
get clearance to call it up, I guess. I don't know whether our 
leadership is really opposed to calling it up or whether the Democratic 
leadership has resisted, but the fact is that we reported it out of the 
Rules Committee on a bipartisan vote and it is on the calendar, it is 
waiting. So I hope that at some point we could consider that 527 
freestanding, or if we ever have a hearing on campaign finance reform, 
527 will be an important part of it. If we really want to do something 
that would affect how our campaigns are conducted this fall and in 
2008, this is the place where we ought to do it.
  These 527s involve a huge amount of money, mostly from rich people. 
They wind up in our campaigns against Republicans or against Democrats, 
and almost always attacking, and with no real disclosure of where this 
big money comes from. We know a lot of it on the Democratic side comes 
from I guess ``moveon.org,'' or George Soros. We also know that on our 
side of the aisle, we have the Swift Boat Veterans that ran negative 
ads funded with 527 money against Senator Kerry when he was running for 
President.
  That is just the beginning. Both parties are going to do this more 
and more, the amount of money is going to go up, it is the worst kind 
of sewer money, and it is going to embarrass both of us. We need to get 
a grip on this 527 area now because they are not reporting, they are 
not disclosing, and they are not subject to any limits on 
contributions. So I would hope that we would find a way to deal with 
this, and I can assure my colleagues that I am going to withhold on 
campaign finance reform, but if anybody offers a serious campaign 
finance reform amendment, I will second degree it with 527 because I 
believe we ought to be doing this anyway.
  What we will require is that you have to register with the FEC. If 
you are involved with campaigns, why would you have to disclose what 
you are doing in a campaign? Now, is that a tragedy?
  We had some language in the Rules Committee bill that is on the floor 
now that somebody said: Well, you know, if you require this group to 
disclose, that is an unfair punishment. Excuse me? To disclose and 
report your contributions or expenditures is punishment? I don't 
understand that. That is what I believe we ought to be doing here. The 
American people have a right to know how we raise our money, where we 
raise our money from, how much it is, and it needs to be reported early 
and regularly. Let them decide. If they don't like the way you raise 
your money, they can vote against you. That is the way to do it.
  So these 527s are unregulated, not even registered with the FEC, and 
it also should be required that they be subject to hard money limits on 
what can be donated. So I believe the real danger is in this so-called 
527 area.
  The bill we reported provides exceptions for 527s whose annual 
receipts are less than $25,000, which consists solely of State or local 
candidates or officials, or whose activities exclusively relate to 
State or local elections and ballot initiatives.
  There is justification for these exceptions when small amount of 
money are involved in trying to encourage people to vote on ballot 
initiatives and so forth. But these exceptions do not apply if a 527 
organization transmits a public communication that promotes, supports, 
attacks, or opposes a Federal candidate in the year prior to the 
Federal election, or conducts any voter drive activities in connection 
with an election in which a Federal candidate appears on the ballot.
  The bill would also require that at least 50 percent of the 527 
organization's administrative overhead expenses would have to be paid 
for with hard money.
  The time has come to put an end to this shift of power from political 
parties. By the way, what are they for? Political parties are 
legitimate arms to encourage people to run for office, to encourage 
people to get out and vote. They were getting soft money contributions 
which were not going directly to the candidates. We said, Oh, no, that 
is bad. Now it goes to these shadowy 527s that are setting the agenda 
in our election process.
  I think this is a very dangerous area. I have told Senator Dodd, and 
I will keep my word, I do not intend to offer an amendment on this. I 
hope the leadership would take that legislation up freestanding, 
separate from this bill. But if we get into a whole movement into the 
campaign finance reform, instead of the rules of the Senate with regard 
to gifts and traveling and so forth, this would be one of the issues 
that would come up. I wanted to put that into the Record.


                           Hurricane Katrina

  Mr. President, seeing no other Senator wishing to speak, I wish to 
switch over to another area. I urge my colleagues to begin to think 
about another issue that I think is very critical. This, once again, 
relates to my part of the country and my home State with regard to 
Hurricane Katrina.
  I have a long experience in dealing with disasters--five hurricanes, 
two tornadoes with major consequences, two ice storms, and a flood. I 
have been dealing with disasters since 1969 when Hurricane Camille hit 
my home area. I thought it was the worst disaster I had ever seen or 
the country would ever see. Yet we see now that Hurricane Katrina 
dwarfed Hurricane Camille.
  Going back to 1969, we had not quite come to the thinking we have 
now, where the Federal Government is going to do everything for us. 
People on the Mississippi gulf coast were on their backs. We had been 
devastated by that hurricane. We didn't know how we were going to deal 
with it. The President of the United States flew into Gulfport, MS, and 
said, We will not forget you. Then they called in the Office of 
Emergency Preparedness, an independent

[[Page 2686]]

agency accountable only to the President of the United States and 
headed by a military officer. He came down, set up offices, and it 
worked. Dealing with Hurricane Camille and the cleanup and the 
aftermath was the best after a disaster I have ever seen. The people in 
that area were awed and amazed, and appreciated what happened in the 
cleanup after that hurricane.
  Now, 40 years later it is worse, not better. What happened? Why, 40 
years later, have we not learned the lessons from previous disasters 
and the cleanup after those hurricanes so we would do a quick, 
efficient, effective job after hurricanes? One of my very bright young 
staff members said it is because it has been 40 years of accumulated 
bureaucracy. I fear maybe he is right. But I think it is maybe 
something more than that. Over the years we have evolved in emergency 
preparedness for natural disasters and the recovery afterward. We have 
gone through a number of changes in names and a number of changes in 
locations. We have had some good heads of the emergency entity and some 
not so good heads.
  I remember the head of the emergency preparedness organization under 
President Clinton was a gentleman named James Lee Witt from Arkansas. 
He was excellent. He did a wonderful job. My dealings with him after 
one of the hurricanes in the 1990s could not have been any better. So 
it does partially depend on who the leader is at these entities.
  But I remember sitting in the leader's conference room when we were 
setting up this huge, new behemoth, the Department of Homeland 
Security. We were discussing how big was it going to be, what agencies 
and departments were we going to merge into that big, new department. I 
remember we had quite a lengthy discussion about the Coast Guard 
because they wanted to put the Coast Guard in Homeland Security and 
some of us did not like that. Senators Inouye and Stevens and others 
put some language in there about how the Coast Guard would work in that 
department, so eventually we went along with it. I am not sure it was a 
good idea, but obviously the Coast Guard has done a good job since the 
hurricane and generally does a good job.
  Then it came up how we were going to put the emergency management 
agency in this new Department of Homeland Security--FEMA. I remember I 
raised questions. I said wait a minute, I am not sure we want to wrap 
this agency in this huge bureaucracy. I am afraid they will get pushed 
aside or underfunded or neglected. Preparation for terrorist attacks 
and homeland security is very different from preparation for a natural 
disaster and recovery after a disaster.
  But I was told no, they are totally related. When you are working on 
preparation for terrorism, homeland security, it definitely relates to 
emergencies of a natural disaster and the aftermath.
  I said OK. And we did it; we created this monstrous department now 
that is so big, and has been going through the throes of organization 
and management. I think they have done a pretty good job. I thought Tom 
Ridge was a good Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I 
have not had a personal problem with Secretary Chertoff. It is 
difficult to do what they have been doing. But I must say, we were 
wrong. We should not have put FEMA in the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  What has happened is that some of the people with FEMA, who are 
experienced heads, said: You know, we are going to get overrun. This is 
not going to be good. So the more experienced, qualified hands--I think 
a lot of them left. I found after Hurricane Katrina the agency was rife 
with bureaucracy. The chain of command--I don't know where it is. I 
guess it is nonexistent.
  It is underfunded. There are inadequate funds, and it is undermanned. 
I think six of the nine regional positions of leadership are ``acting'' 
people; temporary.
  I think we made a huge mistake when we moved FEMA into the Department 
of Homeland Security. I found repeatedly over the past 6 months they 
couldn't deal with debris removal. The degree of bureaucracy is mind 
boggling. Congress has to act, Treasury has to release the money, OMB 
has to say it is OK. The money goes to FEMA and then to the Corps of 
Engineers, and the Corps of Engineers gives it to the big contractor in 
Florida who gives it to the local contractors who give it to the small 
guy. By the time it gets to the guy who is actually moving the debris, 
he is getting $6 a cubic yard while the big contract is probably $21. 
It is a totally unworkable situation.
  I found also when you talked to the leadership here in Washington, 
they may say the right thing and want to do the right thing, but it 
doesn't get to the FEMA person on the ground. They don't get the word. 
Or if they get the word, they ignore it. I don't know who they work 
for. I could cite so many horror stories you wouldn't believe it. It 
makes me cry to even think about it.
  I have introduced legislation to do what I thought we should have 
done in the first place, and that is to have FEMA as a separate, 
independent agency, reportable only to one person, and that person is 
the disaster czar. It is the President of the United States.
  For instance, I watched the talk shows on Sunday. There was some 
complaining that the head of FEMA was going around the head of the 
Homeland Security Department to talk directly to the President. Why, of 
course. Why not? Why would you have to report through layers and layers 
and layers, chain of command, to get to the big guy? It is ridiculous. 
The guy in charge of the disaster situation and recovery and cleanup 
and all that should be talking to the President of the United States. 
He should be directly involved--not in minutia, by the way, but in the 
grand picture. When you are dealing with disaster, somebody has to be 
in charge, giving orders.
  I think I am going to be joined in this effort by other Senators from 
the region, including hopefully Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter and 
my colleague from Mississippi. I know Senator Clinton of New York has 
similar legislation. I invite my colleagues to take a look at it. It is 
coming. I don't know whether it will come out of the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee, but if it doesn't in a reasonable 
period of time, the first time we have an opportunity to offer this 
legislation, it will be offered as an amendment. I don't want to 
surprise people with it. I want you to think about it.
  Believe me, the current bureaucracy has not worked. You don't want to 
get hit with this if you are from a coastal area, or an area prone to 
tornadoes or earthquakes or forest fires. You are going to need quick, 
decisive, unbureaucratic, adequately funded reactions where the chain 
of command is very short to make sure the job is actually done.
  I will be back on the Mississippi gulf coast this coming weekend. I 
will see how we are doing. But I think it is not enough to just 
complain about what has happened. I am not trying to fix blame; I want 
to know how it is going to be better next week. I want to know how it 
is going to be better next year. My house will not be rebuilt in my 
hometown this year, but I am going to rebuild it. And the next time we 
have a hurricane, I hope we could get the Corps of Engineers to 
bulldoze the stranded houses that have effectively been destroyed in 
quicker than this time.
  I wanted to put that on the record and encourage my colleagues to 
think about this. At some point you quit complaining and start taking 
action. You start dealing with the problems. Quite often, you know what 
I have found, the problem is not the bureaucracy or the department or 
the President or the Governor of some State--it is us. It is the way we 
write the laws--convoluted, unworkable laws that we put on the books. 
This is one case where we made a mistake. Let's fix it.
  This legislation will put back an independent, freestanding agency, 
and that would be the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I believe we do have some votes. We will have, two or 
three

[[Page 2687]]

votes, I believe the leader said, at approximately 5:30. I believe 
there will be some Senators who are coming over to speak on behalf of 
these judicial nominations between now and then.
  For now I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________