[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2877-2888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2349 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 2932, to provide additional transparency 
     in the legislative process.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes this 
morning commenting on the provisions offered by the Democratic leader, 
Senator Reid of Nevada, which is a comprehensive amendment that covers 
a lot of the waterfront related to the matter before us, and that is 
greater transparency and accountability by Members of this institution 
as well as those who lobby us, who come to us and petition us as paid 
representatives of various public, private, and nonprofit entities, so 
we have a better opportunity to restore a lot of the confidence that 
has been eroded in how this institution performs its public function.
  My colleague from Nevada, the chairman of the Democratic team here, 
has put together a very good proposal. It has been endorsed and 
supported by over 40 of our colleagues as part of the larger Reid bill. 
It is called the Honest Leadership Act. It covers a lot of ground. I 
want to identify the provisions in this bill. I know my colleague from 
Nevada has done that already, but it deserves repetition.
  As someone who has now spent more than a quarter of a century in this 
body, I have great respect for my colleagues and their integrity. We 
all know that laws are not only written for the majority who abide by 
the law, but occasionally we write laws because there are those who 
step outside the boundaries, particularly when it comes to public 
responsibility and trust. I am not suggesting by this amendment, nor is 
the Democratic leader, that my colleagues in any way, at least the 
overwhelming majority, are violating not only the law of the land but 
even ethics, a sense of responsibility, a sense of good conduct. But we 
have learned painfully over the last number of months that there are 
people, unfortunately, who serve in public life, who serve in this 
great Capitol building, who do take advantage of their position for 
private gain, who have abused that public trust and have caused this 
institution and its Members to suffer once again the derision of our 
constituents, of people who are disappointed about how we conduct our 
business. It is a painful thing to go through.
  I have often said I would be willing to take the 99 Members I serve 
with in this body and compare their ethics and

[[Page 2878]]

morality to almost any other group of people, and I am sure they would 
stand up very well. But the facts are that we have people who do abuse 
the process, and we need to be cognizant of that and respond to it. 
That is what Senator Lott and I are doing. That is what my colleagues, 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, are doing with their proposal 
which is part of the underlying bill.
  Senator Reid, on behalf of more than 40 of our colleagues, has put 
together a comprehensive proposal to try and deal with many of these 
issues. I am sure there are matters with which some Members may 
disagree, may want to fine-tune in some way, may not necessarily 
support every dotted ``I'' and crossed ``T.'' But the overall direction 
of the provisions included in this proposal is one that should enjoy 
broad support. We hope when the vote occurs later this morning, we can 
have strong support for it.
  Let me mention several things it does. One, it bans all gifts, 
including meals, from lobbyists, the assumption being that this is no 
longer acceptable. There is no connection between the work of someone 
petitioning government on behalf of a client or an organization and 
simultaneously offering some gift to the Member or to the staff of that 
Member as a way of ingratiating themselves on behalf of the cause they 
represent. It may be innocent enough. We may find it obnoxious, even, 
in some cases, considering some of the things that are called gifts. 
But nonetheless, the perception--perception is reality in the business 
of public life--that Members of Congress or their staffs are receiving 
some unrelated item or gift or service or activity as a result of the 
relationship has come to be unacceptable to most of us here. And again, 
perceptions are such that we suffer as a result of that kind of 
conduct.
  We also impose some additional restrictions of disclosure on the 
revolving door issue, requirements under the bill's revolving door 
provisions. This has to do with Members and senior staff who serve here 
and then leave and go into private life and become lobbyists and use 
that relationship to come back and have an immediate, direct influence 
on the legislative process as a result of those close, personal 
relationships. The revolving door has tried to have additional 
disclosure requirements and even extend to some degree the amount of 
time before such a person could come back and lobby their Member or 
other Members of this body or their senior staff.
  We also deal in the Reid proposal with congressional travel. It bans 
lobbyists or anybody affiliated with them from being involved in 
congressional travel. Again, I say ``congressional travel.'' Travel can 
be a very important element of service in the U.S. Congress. Members, 
from time to time, need to get out around the country and need to 
engage in foreign travel. We are not talking about that. We are not 
talking about related travel in which Members should be engaged. We are 
talking about those travel expenses that are unrelated.
  The most egregious case recently is the matter involving Members of 
the other body on a golfing excursion in Scotland. When people look at 
that, they assume maybe all of us are doing those sorts of things. That 
is not the case, but that is the perception. We need to limit what we 
talk about here in terms of the travel in which Members of Congress can 
engage. In my view, if you are traveling on behalf of your public 
responsibilities as a Member of the Senate or a Member of the Congress, 
then that is something we ought to allow. In fact, we ought to 
encourage it. If the travel is unrelated to that nexus of your public 
responsibility, we ought to try to limit it, if not ban it altogether.
  The Reid proposal does that. It allows only bona fide 501(c)(3) 
organizations to pay for congressional travel for factfinding, 
educational purposes. It retains the requirement for Ethics Committee 
approval for travel beforehand so that if Members think it may be 
questionable, they can get a ruling ahead of time. It requires 
certification that the trip is not planned, supported, or paid for by 
lobbyists. It imposes per diem rates on acceptable third-party-paid 
travel and lodging.
  I point out, Mr. President, it tightens the ban on the so-called K 
Street project. This is controversial. My colleague from Mississippi 
was patient in the Rules Committee in listening to the K Street project 
provision that was offered by my friend from Illinois. It was pointed 
out in committee that there are already prohibitions in existing 
criminal law for people who would suggest that there was going to be a 
price that someone would pay if they hired or did not hire someone else 
based on their political affiliation. We thought it was so important to 
establish this principle in the rules of this body that we have 
codified the prohibition against those who would pressure outside 
employers to make a hiring decision based primarily on party 
affiliation. This is wrong, it is an abuse, and it ought to be stopped. 
The Reid proposal does just that.
  It is especially egregious where it is accompanied by a threat--
implicit or explicit--that a Member might take or withhold certain 
actions based on the hiring decision. We have learned that has 
happened. It is unfortunate. The businesses that did that were unwise 
and shortsighted, but nonetheless it has occurred. This proposal 
includes the ban on the so-called K Street-type projects.
  There are new civil and criminal penalties to combat public 
corruption. It would require new certifications by lobbyists on gifts 
and travel and by trip sponsors and increase penalties for knowing, 
willful, and corrupt violations under the False Statements Act. It 
would prohibit dead-of-night legislating, require a final vote on 
conference reports in a public meeting, which, again, I think is 
critical here.
  We know if you are getting this legislation out, getting it to be 
public on the Internet so people have an opportunity to read, as well, 
what we are about to do, what actions we are about to take--I know this 
becomes difficult under certain circumstances, particularly at the end 
of a session if you are dealing with continuing resolutions which can 
be very large and so forth. It imposes burdens on this institution. But 
I think we bear a responsibility to make sure the public has a clear 
idea, or at least the opportunity for a clear idea, to understand what 
we are about to do, what actions we are about to take, and how they 
would affect them.
  So I urge my colleagues, again, to support this kind of provision. 
Not all are people on this side or the other side of the aisle. So that 
is what is being proposed by Senator Reid of Nevada. I hope in looking 
at this, in conjunction with the underlying accomplishments--let me say 
once again to my colleagues, I think the work of the Rules Committee 
was a good effort, and we are proud of what we did. Again, this is a 
dynamic process that doesn't happen all at once. What is reform one day 
is not the next, and you go back and forth. I always loved this line, 
and you have to be careful.
  There was a wonderful Republican Party chairman in New York who once 
said that the last refuge of the scoundrel was patriotism--until they 
invented the word ``reform.'' People sometimes hide behind that 
language as a way to achieve certain ends.
  What we have done here with the underlying bill--and I think with the 
Reid proposal--is strengthen this legislation. It is going to make us 
all better Members, help restore confidence in this institution and its 
individual Members. I emphasize what I said at the outset. I have great 
confidence in the ethical, moral behavior of my colleagues. People I 
have total disagreements with on policy matters, I trust them as to how 
they conduct themselves in these public arenas. But every profession 
learns that the laws are not written for the majority who obey the law. 
Laws and codes of ethics are written for those in the minority who 
violate that trust and confidence.
  So we write these provisions and include these proposals in statutory 
law and in our code of conduct not because we believe every Member is 
somehow on the brink or cusp of engaging in irresponsible behavior but 
because we recognize and understand that from time to time there will 
be people who

[[Page 2879]]

serve with us who will violate that public trust and confidence. That 
is why we have these codes of conduct, why we have statutory language 
that prohibits the behavior that we have outlined in these proposals.
  So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes in roughly an hour or 
so, to support the Reid proposal. It is offered on behalf of more than 
40 of us in this body. We think it is a sound proposal that would 
strengthen an already good bill. I urge my colleagues to cast and 
``aye'' vote for the Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after conferring with our colleagues on this 
side of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to 
the Reid amendment No. 2932 occur at 11:30 a.m., with no second degrees 
in order prior to the vote, and that all time be equally divided until 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to come over to speak 
if they wish.
  Mr. LOTT. Those who would like to be heard, we want to make sure they 
can be heard. I would be glad to yield my own floor time so they can 
comment. I do have some comments I would like to make, and I will ask 
unanimous consent--I will do it then--that we set aside the Reid 
amendment so that we can have one offered by Senator Santorum, and we 
can begin debate on that. The emphasis will be on the Reid amendment, 
if you want to check that and make sure you are OK with that. I see one 
potential speaker.
  In order to try to keep things moving, we are going to try to get 
another amendment offered, and we will alternate back and forth.
  Mr. DODD. I have no objection at all to that proposal offered by my 
friend from Mississippi. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle who 
have amendments or ideas on the bill, let us know so we can move the 
process along, and let us know what your amendments are so we can begin 
to consider and discuss them even before they are offered as a way of 
trying to expedite the process. The Senate wants to consider other 
matters. This is very important, but I would like to move as rapidly as 
we can on the consideration of these ideas and proposals.
  I urge my colleagues who have amendments and want to be heard to let 
us know as soon as possible.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, full disclosure, too. We have other Senators 
who would like to get into the mix, I say to Senator Dodd. Senator 
Inhofe is here with some amendments, some of which we can probably get 
an agreement on, some of which will take more time. Also, Senator 
Vitter, who is in the chair now, would like to get into the mix.
  As we go back and forth, I thought we would go to Santorum, and then 
if you have a Senator--or maybe we can clear a couple of the Inhofe 
amendments. That is what we would like to do.
  Mr. President, I want to respond a little bit to the Reid proposal. I 
think you have to give credit to Senator Reid and the Democrats for 
developing some legislation for this body to consider. People may be 
shocked to hear me say that, thinking that is not the way we do things. 
This is basically the Democratic leader's proposal. My attitude is, 
look, good work was done on it. They have a package here. Some of it 
was good enough that we pulled it out and put it right into the Rules 
Committee bill. I want to give credit to the fact that they want to 
work on this and have made some recommendations. In that vein, Senator 
Santorum, at the request of our leader, as chairman of our conference, 
went to work and started developing a package of ideas, amendments, and 
concerns and solutions, too.
  So both parties were working on this. Yes, it was on separate tracks, 
but as we went forward Senators began to realize that this is not 
really partisan. It is even bigger than the institution. It is about us 
and the people we represent and their rights. We need to think this 
through because whatever we do, we are going to have to live with it, 
and the American people are going to have to live with it.
  As time went forward, Senator Santorum was working with Senator 
McCain and Senator Lieberman. I started working with Senator Dodd--we 
talked--and Senator Feinstein, and then bipartisan meetings started to 
happen. I tell you, I wish we could do more things here like this. We 
came to a juncture and we reported out a bill from the Rules Committee 
that was unanimously approved. The Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee reported out a bill that had only one dissenting 
vote. This is the way it ought to work.
  I give credit to Senator Reid and the Democrats for getting involved 
and helping this process. But now we have to produce legislation. It is 
important that we hear each other out and that we have some debate and 
some amendments and votes and get this job done.
  Mr. President, the amendment presented by the Democratic leader is 
not fundamentally different from any of the provisions of the bill 
reported by the Rules Committee and by the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee. It has similar provisions to what was 
in the Santorum package. Our main differences are on issues such as how 
to treat gifts from lobbyists, and the Reid amendment bars all gifts 
from registered lobbyists. The Rules Committee bans gifts from 
registered lobbyists, except for meals, which are not included in the 
definition of a gift. I will give you one example for why we are making 
this exception. Our bill bars gifts from registered lobbyists and 
foreign agents. A very thoughtful Senator, chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, inquired: Wait a minute. How will 
that work if I am invited as chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee to a dinner at an embassy of a foreign country that involves 
foreign agents? Will I be able to go? How will I deal with that?
  That is the kind of thoughtful question we better think about because 
we don't want to put ourselves into a position where we cannot do our 
jobs.
  Another example of where I am concerned is we have language in the 
Homeland Security bill that is going to restrict or require more 
reporting of grassroots lobbying activities. This will have a chilling 
effect on grassroots lobbying. Do we want to do that? What about the 
right of the people to petition their government for a redress of 
grievances? Why are we letting on like there is something wrong with 
people with a point of view who would get people involved and get our 
constituents to contact us about an issue? We are big boys and girls.
  We should be able to hear from our constituents, even if they are 
inspired by the Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club, or even if it 
is something such as the ports issue. I heard from a lot of my 
constituents. We need to make sure we think through what we do here.
  The Reid amendment claims to prohibit privately funded travel, yet, 
in fact, it does no such thing. It opens a loophole that would allow 
501(c)(3) organizations to finance congressional travel. The Rules 
Committee requires far stricter preclearance of such trips.
  My attitude is, instead of setting up a new process or new loophole, 
let's have these trips reviewed mandatorily and approved or you can't 
do it. Then you have to also divulge the itinerary and who is involved 
in these trips. I think that is a far better approach.
  The Democratic alternative presented by Senator Reid bars lobbyists 
from participating in such trips whereas the Rules Committee measure 
requires disclosure of lobbyist involvement.
  The Reid amendment also prohibits a Member from negotiating for 
prospective private employment if a conflict of interest or the 
appearance of a conflict exists. We have that in our Rules Committee 
language. We actually went a step further than that. The law prohibits 
this already, but I also think that a rule in this area is fine.
  The Reid amendment makes it a felony for a Member of Congress to seek 
to influence a private employment decision by threatening to take or 
withhold an official act. Absolutely we

[[Page 2880]]

should do that. I think the law already does that. I honestly believe 
the bills reported by the Rules Committee and Governmental Affairs 
Committee are superior to the Reid amendment.
  When I first looked at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
bill, I wasn't quite sure what it did. But as I read it more and more, 
it is very good in terms of reporting, disclosure, and transparency. It 
requires more reporting with regard to lobbyists.
  We better continue to ask ourselves about what we are doing here. For 
instance, I am particularly troubled by the provisions that would only 
allow travel sponsored by 501(c)(3) organizations. Do my colleagues not 
realize that 501(c)(3) organizations can be manipulated and used by 
lobbyists as fronts for their lobbying activities? In fact, that is 
exactly what Jack Abramoff did. He laundered money through a 501(c)(3) 
and used a tax-exempt entity to finance congressional travel.
  This is one of my major concerns with the Reid proposal. I think it 
actually endorses a process that has been used to abuse the lobbying 
rules.
  While the effort here is a good one by Senator Reid and in good 
faith, we have a superior bill. Where Senator Reid had some good 
proposals, we put them into the Rules Committee bill. But there are 
many provisions, a much more detailed package from the Rules Committee 
and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
  I hope when the time comes, this amendment will be rejected. We are 
trying to make this a responsible bill--not inferring that the Reid 
amendment is not responsible. We are also trying to make it bipartisan. 
So I am concerned that we have come right out of the gate with a 
partisan package. I assume we are not going to have the Santorum 
alternative offered as a package. It has been melded into what we have.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the partisan package. Let's take the 
good stuff out of it and make it a part of our final product.
  Mr. President, I will be glad to yield the floor so a Senator may 
speak on the Reid proposal. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if it is all right with Senator Dodd, I 
wish to be heard on the Reid amendment for not longer than 15 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield whatever the time the Senator cares to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has now taken 
up this important issue. I compliment Senators Lott and Dodd for 
working together, as well as Senators Collins and Lieberman. We needed 
to have this debate. We need to have these changes.
  Over the past several months, we have all heard the sorry tale of 
scandal and corruption and bribery involving Jack Abramoff, senior Bush 
administration officials, and, sadly for us, Members of Congress. Those 
tales have unfolded here in Washington. It is clear that these scandals 
show corruption has taken hold here and that we in Congress must act. 
That is why I am so glad we have set aside time for this bill.
  The measure on the floor today makes important strides in cleaning up 
corruption, but, in my view, it doesn't go quite far enough. Under the 
leadership of Senator Harry Reid, Senate Democrats have advanced 
legislation that goes even further, but it doesn't go so far as to make 
it unworkable or unreasonable.
  We were and Senator Reid was the first to respond to the revelations 
of scandal and corruption in Washington. Nearly the entire Democratic 
caucus united to create a package of reforms which we call the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. It was the first idea that 
we rolled out for the American people to see.
  I believe the Reid bill helped set the tone for the bill we are 
debating today. I do, again, Mr. President, thank Senator Lott for his 
leadership in the committee. I thank him for working so closely with 
Senator Dodd. And I say the same to all my colleagues involved in this 
issue because we know the partisanship here is deep and the Senators 
set it aside, and for that we are all grateful.
  What we have before us is an excellent start. If we did that and 
nothing else, it is a start. But we have a chance now to do better. I 
think the American people won't settle for just a good start; they want 
to see deep reform. They want the revolving door slowed so that they 
don't see Members of Congress--Senators and House Members--staff 
members, and administration officials walking out the Capitol steps and 
walking right into a lucrative job where they will have undue influence 
in terms of what goes on in the Congress.
  The American people want to feel they still have a voice, even though 
they don't have thousands or maybe millions of dollars to shell out on 
K Street where the lobbyists thrive. They want gifts banned. They don't 
want to see a commission report on why the latest scandal happened; 
they want measures in place that prevent scandals from taking place at 
all.
  My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle are prepared to offer 
amendments to strengthen this bill, and Senator Reid's package is the 
first such attempt. I believe it is important, again, to strengthen 
this bill and raise it to a standard in which our constituents can take 
comfort.
  We truly need to go beyond what we have before us. We also need to go 
beyond the Congress and follow the money, as sordid as it may be, and 
follow the meetings, and follow the contacts between Mr. Abramoff and 
the White House. So far, the White House is quick to admonish those 
outside the administration who engage in scandalous acts. Yet they have 
maintained a policy of duck and cover and denying when allegations are 
pointed in their direction.
  I will have an amendment calling on the White House to cooperate, to 
turn over the information that we and the public deserve to have on how 
many times Jack Abramoff was in the White House, or his associates, and 
what it is they wanted and what it is they got and what it is they 
gave. That amendment will be coming soon. It is very clear. I hope it 
will be accepted. I know that my side of the aisle supports it.
  My amendment simply says that the White House should fully disclose 
all of its dealings with Mr. Abramoff. We certainly should disclose our 
dealings, and as far as I know, every Member has gone back and looked 
to see if they received contributions from Mr. Abramoff, if they 
received contributions from anyone associated with him. Many of us have 
acted to either return those contributions or to explain why we would 
rather give them to charity. We have opened up our books. The White 
House has to open up its books as well.
  Again, I am very pleased at the bipartisan effort that has taken 
place to bring ethics reform to the floor today, and I urge all my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Nevada and continue this bipartisanship.
  Anyone who knows Harry Reid knows he is a reasonable person who loves 
this institution, who has given his life to public service, starting 
from the time he was a police officer. The Reid amendment serves only 
to strengthen the reforms we seek and that the American people demand. 
This is what it does in part.
  It closes the revolving door so that the outcome of legislation is 
not tied to a Member's potential job prospects. It ends the K Street 
project by shutting down the pay-to-play corruption scheme. K Street 
offices should be staffed by individuals who are the most qualified for 
the job, not well-placed former congressional staffers who obtain their 
job through a back-room deal to stack the deck in any party's political 
favor. And we know that calls come routinely to these offices saying: 
Hire this staff or that staff, and the implication is you will be 
treated better in legislation. It is a disgrace.
  The Reid amendment increases penalties for violations of the rules 
under the Lobbying Disclosure Act as a further deterrent for lobbyists 
to engage in unethical practices, and it prohibits dead-of-night 
legislating to allow for

[[Page 2881]]

an open meeting of the conferees with access by the public. The public 
is so shut out around here. Not only are Democrats shut out of some 
conferences, but the public certainly knows not what is going on. We 
want the light of day to shine. If you want to stop those bridges to 
nowhere and other projects that don't make any sense, open up the 
process to the light of day, and all of us--all of us--will be 
scrutinized.
  I think we should impose tougher restrictions on congressional travel 
and gifts. We know there is a difference between traveling in an 
official congressional delegation and traveling because some company 
wants to do you a favor. We know what that is about. There is a 
difference between a truly educational trip that is sponsored by a 
foundation with no ties to special economic interests and a trip that 
is organized by some economic interests that want to treat you in a way 
that will make you more open to what they want. There is a difference 
here, and I think what the Reid amendment does is walk that line.
  So with this bill, amended by the Reid amendment, the American public 
will have reason to feel confident that laws are being written and 
debated and voted on by Members who respect democracy and the wishes of 
their constituents and are not unduly influenced by forces that simply 
want it because it is good for their bottom line.
  We must be open, we must be honest, and we must be ethical. I know 
each of us tries to do that, but the rules need to reflect the highest 
denominator, not the middle, not the lowest. With this bill, we are at 
the middle denominator. The Reid amendment and some other amendments 
offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle can bring us up to 
that highest level, and I hope we will start by voting ``aye'' on the 
Reid amendment in a bipartisan way. It will set the tone of this 
debate.
  I thank my colleague Senator Dodd for yielding me this time. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized for the purpose of 
having a colloquy with the chairman and ranking minority member, 
Senator Lott and Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for that purpose.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.
  As the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee knows, Senator 
Grassley and I have worked for a decade to bring some openness and 
accountability to the Senate by requiring that when a Senator puts a 
hold on a major piece of legislation, they would have to disclose it 
publicly. Senator Grassley and I are ready to go with that bipartisan 
amendment which we have worked on for a decade. I would simply ask the 
distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member 
what the process is so that Senator Grassley and I can bring forward 
this bipartisan amendment. I pose my question to the distinguished 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in answer to the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon, we have before us the Reid amendment which is in the nature of 
a substitute.
  I am advised it is not; it is a regular amendment. We are going to 
have a vote on it at 11:30. We are open for debate on that amendment.
  Then we are working out arrangements where we would come back to this 
side to Senator Santorum and Senator Dodd, who are going to offer the 
next amendment jointly, sometime between now and 11:30, or immediately 
after the vote on the Reid amendment. Then it would be back to the 
Democratic side and going back and forth for the next amendment that 
might be in order. We are encouraging Members to come to the floor and 
offer their amendments. We have Senator Inhofe coming up to offer 
amendments on our side. But after Senator Santorum, we would be back 
for I guess a jump ball if anybody wanted to offer an amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. Would it be acceptable to the distinguished chair of the 
committee and ranking minority member that I could ask unanimous 
consent that after you all have completed the bipartisan amendment of 
the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Pennsylvania, that 
when you all have completed your business, the Wyden-Grassley amendment 
come next?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have no objection. We are encouraging 
Senators to come to the floor with their amendments, and if Senator 
Wyden would like to be next in line, that is fine. As a part of that, 
let me ask consent that Senator Inhofe be allowed to offer the next 
amendment after the Wyden-Grassley amendment so we would have a package 
of the two lined up.
  I propose then that we have the Wyden amendment in order after the 
Santorum-Dodd proposal, to be followed by the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking 
minority member.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, does my colleague from Delaware request 
time?
  Mr. CARPER. I do. Can I ask for 5 minutes?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have been trying to go back and 
forth. The last speaker was Senator Boxer. I think we have been trying 
to alternate back and forth.
  Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator propose to speak on the pending amendment?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am going to talk about the bill, and 
then I will yield back to Senator Dodd to actually offer the amendment 
we are working on, was my intent. That was the plan.
  Mr. President, I, too, rise to thank Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, 
as well as Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman. They talked about how 
this process has been somewhat unique in the annals of recent Senate 
history and about how this process has worked now for the past month, a 
little over a month in a way that, as Senator Lott said, should be done 
more often around here, which is sitting down and having good, 
bipartisan discussions to try to come up with a consensus piece of 
legislation.
  While obviously there will be lots of amendments, at least the 
foundation of this bill is one that included a lot of bipartisan input 
and, in fact, has features from both sides of the aisle and is as much 
a bipartisan bill, at least on a major bill, as has been brought to the 
floor in a long time. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
committees, in particular Senator McCain for his leadership on this 
issue, as well as others who participated in the bipartisan process, 
including Senator Feingold, Senator Pryor, Senator Obama, Senator 
Salazar, and others who have made contributions on the Democratic side; 
Senator Vitter, Senator Isakson on the Republican side, who have also 
been very involved in the process.
  As a result of that process, we came up with a working document. I 
won't call it a consensus because there were Members who had varying 
points of view on a variety of these issues, but let's say that at the 
conclusion of our discussions we had a working draft that had broad 
support as a whole. At the same time, as you will see in the 
discussions and in the amendments we are going to have today, some wish 
to ratchet it up a little bit, make it a little tougher; others thought 
it might be a little too tough. But in the areas of concern, there was 
broad agreement on what those areas of concern are, and suggestions of 
approaches on how to deal with it.
  I wish to go through the areas that we agreed needed to be addressed 
and what the general idea was in how to proceed with a lot of the 
things that are up here, which were foundational in the sense that we 
started with the McCain-Lieberman bill that Senator McCain and Senator 
Lieberman introduced a couple of months ago, and there was some 
tinkering to that legislation. Overall, the disclosure requirements in 
that legislation were universally embraced and adopted for disclosure 
of lobbyist contributions to Member PACs, and lobbyist disclosure of 
executive and congressional employment. All of those things were 
included, as well as others we have heard talked about on the floor.

[[Page 2882]]

  Several things were not included: disclosure of contracts with State 
sponsors of terrorism. That is something I happen to believe should be 
included in the legislation, but so far we have had objections to that 
being included. I am not too sure I understand why but, nevertheless, 
it has not been included.
  We suggested 30 days, not 60 days, to comply with the rules. That has 
not been included.
  Higher penalties. The penalties were increased from $50,000 to 
$100,000. Many of us believe that is not sufficient as a deterrent for 
some who make a lot more than $50,000 or $100,000 around here on 
transactions. So we think a higher penalty sends a stronger signal, and 
I will be offering an amendment on that to increase the penalties up to 
$200,000. Again, it is up to $200,000 for breaking these rules, 
lobbyists breaking these rules.
  One of the important things we brought to the table that was not in 
the underlying bill was disclosure of rule enforcement by the Secretary 
of the Senate and the U.S. Attorney. In other words, one of the 
concerns Members have and that the public has is, What sort of 
oversight is being done? Are there any actions being taken? What this 
would require is that when there, in fact, is an action taken on the 
part of the committee, and it has been referred to a U.S. Attorney for 
prosecution--not that particular case, but at least the number of cases 
that have been referred is made public so we know the level of 
activity. Not the specific charge, because we don't know whether the 
U.S. Attorney will actually bring a charge, but we at least know the 
number.
  There are several other things we did in our bipartisan discussions: 
ban registered lobbyists who are former Members from the Senate floor; 
no staff contact with lobbyists who are a member of the family, which 
is an amendment I successfully offered in committee, in the Rules 
Committee; and the earmark transparency, something Senator Lott and 
Senator Feinstein have worked with, and obviously Senator McCain. There 
will be differences. We passed something out of the Rules Committee. 
There will be amendments to try to expand this provision, maybe 
contract this provision, modify it; but the idea was developed and 
supported by a bipartisan group.
  Another thing Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman put in their 
bill, which was very important that we brought to the table, was the 
idea of an SRO, a self-regulatory organization that many professional 
organizations use to police their own ranks. While we can pass laws and 
we can pass rules that try to govern the lobbyist profession, there are 
a lot of things within the profession that need to be upgraded, whether 
it is fees or whether it is professional ethics, and there is not a 
good body out there that does that. There certainly isn't any kind of 
self-regulatory body that does that. We think it is vitally important 
to send a message from the Congress to the folks who make a living 
petitioning their government to clean up their own house, and 
particularly in greater detail than what the Congress could or should 
do with respect to the practices, the internal practices of lobbying 
firms and lobbyists.
  I think this is a very important suggestion, something I felt very 
strongly about, and I appreciate Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins 
for including it in their legislation.
  This is the final chart, which again shows the consensus. You can see 
the checkmarks here again, which are areas that are already included in 
the bill that were part of the bipartisan discussion, to extend the 
lobbying ban for Members and senior staff from 1 to 2 years for Members 
and included more senior staff of Members in a separate amendment. Both 
were discussed and supported broadly in our discussions.
  This is something I also felt very strongly about: Members not being 
able to negotiate for private sector employment while they are a member 
of the Senate. Then we put in the date of the election of your 
successor as the date you can then freely discuss employment 
opportunities for after your life here in the Senate. We have an 
exception. There needs to be an exception. If something happens, a 
personal emergency in the family, or something comes up where you feel 
you have to leave the Senate for some reason, the opportunity to have 
those discussions simply must be disclosed within 3 days of having 
those discussions. Again, we think there needs to be an escape hatch 
for those kinds of contingencies.
  Travel was a very big point of discussion and will be a point of 
discussion here on the floor of the Senate. Privately funded travel 
must be preapproved by Ethics, be of educational value, have little or 
no R and R--rest and recreational value, disclosure of the lobbyist's 
involvement in the trip, as well as all activities reported after the 
trip. In other words, you have to file a comprehensive report of what 
you did, not just what you planned to do.
  The area that was not done and that I will be offering an amendment 
on with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold is having to do with the 
Members and Federal candidates paying a fair market value for the cost 
of corporate travel. I know this is very controversial, particularly 
for Members from larger States using a private aircraft in getting 
around. But as we will discuss later with Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold on the floor, we believe this is an area that needs to be 
addressed. This is clearly a subsidy. I understand, and I think we all 
understand, this will probably require higher amounts of money in our 
accounts to be able to pay for these costs as we travel around our 
States that now are, in a sense, subsidized by the private sector. But 
I believe this is a very important transparency issue.
  The final issue is the mandatory disclosure of travel on private 
charter flights by Members as well as Federal candidates, so this is 
something that we did.
  The last thing that is on the agenda, and then I will turn it over to 
the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, is the gift ban. Now we do 
have a gift ban in this bill having to do with lobbyists. Lobbyists are 
no longer allowed to give any gift of any value to Members. The one 
area that is excluded from that is meals. To be clear, what the Rules 
Committee did was make a change to current law which says, you are 
allowed to purchase a meal for a Member of Congress or his staff of up 
to almost $50. The Rules Committee said you have to now report it if it 
is above $10. That, I think, is worse than the current law, in my 
opinion, because it sets up a situation where Members--I can tell you 
if this is the law that would go into place, I would tell my staff, and 
certainly I would never have a meal with a Member, because it creates 
the impression first that you have to report it, and of course any 
activity that occurred with respect to that lobbyist and your office or 
legislation you voted on or campaign activities would be tied to this 
particular event which, of course, may or may not have had anything to 
do with that particular event, but it creates, I think, an untenable 
situation. I think the effect of Senator Lott's suggestion would be, in 
fact, a ban on meals, so if that would be the effect of it, let's do 
it.
  So I have offered an amendment. Senator Dodd came to the floor with 
the same idea. We have spoken. We have decided to jointly offer an 
amendment that would ban all meals from registered lobbyists to Members 
of Congress and their staff. That is the amendment Senator Dodd will be 
teeing up here in a moment. Again, we filed virtually identical 
amendments.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut because of the 
fine work he has done to be the lead sponsor on this amendment. We need 
to work together and get this done because the current situation in 
this bill, in my opinion, is simply untenable and is a potential trap 
for the unsuspecting, which I would not like to see be visited on any 
Member of the Senate.
  With that, again, I want to congratulate all of those who were 
involved. I think you see that the bipartisan process we worked on for 
several weeks yielded the basis--the basis of the bill we have before 
us has yielded a situation where I think most of the amendments that 
are going to be offered are

[[Page 2883]]

going to be offered in a bipartisan fashion because discussions were 
actively underway that did have sincere collaboration. As a result of 
that, I think you are going to see a lot of the effort being put 
forward today in a bipartisan fashion. I am pleased to be able to kick 
that off with the Senator from Connecticut on the issue of not allowing 
lobbyists to buy meals for either Members or their staffs here in the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor for the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Who yields time?


                           Amendment No. 2942

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Delaware has asked to be 
recognized. Before he does that, I am going to send a modification--an 
amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, and Senator Obama to 
the desk and ask for a modification to be accepted of that amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Reid amendment 
for purposes of considering this amendment and then we will go right 
back to the Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the meals and refreshments exception for lobbyists)

       On page 8, strike lines 8 through 16.


                    Amendment No. 2942, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 2942), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the meals and refreshments exception for lobbyists)

       On page 8, strike lines 6 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) This clause shall not apply to a gift from a 
     registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal.''


                           Amendment No. 2932

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at conclusion of the vote on the Reid 
amendment, this would be the next item to be considered. That is the 
purpose for offering it now. For the purposes of recognition, I am 
going back and forth, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to clarify, we will need to go back to the 
Reid amendment or was that automatic under the agreement, so we are 
back on the Reid amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reid amendment is once again pending.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a 
unanimous consent we are operating under, but my only request is if the 
Senator from Delaware goes next, I be recognized after the Senator from 
Delaware for my amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to the parliamentary 
inquiry before the Chair comments on it, we did get an agreement that 
yours would be next in order. That was in the previous unanimous 
consent agreement.
  Mr. INHOFE. So I will be following the Senator from Delaware. Thank 
you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, my thanks to Senator Dodd and Senator 
Lott. My thanks to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins as well. By 
working together, they have speeded along reforms that I think most of 
us agree are badly needed. I am hopeful that the bipartisan approach 
that they have taken on this issue will rub off on the rest of us, not 
only with respect to this particular subject but with respect to others 
that are before us.
  I am sure all of us have gone home and heard about how disappointed 
people are with what they see going on in parts of Washington these 
days. I think most Delawareans realize we are not all taking bribes and 
not all lobbyists are crooks. I certainly agree with them. I have met 
many more good people here during my time in the Senate than bad, and I 
am sure those sentiments are shared by my colleagues. But similar to 
those I have spoken to in recent months, news of the Abramoff scandal 
and of the bribing of Congressmen and their staffs have hit the papers 
and television news outside the beltway. I am gravely disappointed that 
our system can allow such excesses and disrespect for the people who 
sent us here.
  The fact is, the American people have lost some of the trust they 
have placed in their leaders here in Washington. That is dangerous 
because, as we all know, a lot of the folks around our country did not 
have a whole lot of trust in us to begin with. That is why I am proud 
to support today the amendment offered by Senator Reid. It would add 
several provisions from the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 
to the bill that is before us today.
  Senator Reid's amendment would make a good bill even better. It would 
do so by ending certain practices that at the very least create among 
our constituents a perception of impropriety.
  Along those lines, the Reid amendment would prohibit Members and 
staff from receiving gifts from registered lobbyists. Many offices, 
mine included, are already implementing this kind of reform. We will no 
longer accept meals, entertainment or any other gifts from lobbyists, 
and will abide by that standard until the Congress decides what the new 
standard should be.
  The Reid amendment would also ban congressional travel funded by 
companies and other special interests that have business before the 
Senate. Senator Reid's proposals to end the practice of receiving gifts 
and privately funded travel from lobbyists are, in my opinion, reason 
enough to vote for this amendment. Unfortunately, we find ourselves at 
a time and place where even truly significant reforms will be met with 
skepticism by the American people. While none of us could be bought 
with a $50 meal, the all too common assumption is that any reform, any 
new restriction, any new guideline or rule will be written in such a 
way that Members, staff, and lobbyists will still have loopholes 
through which to operate.
  Bans close all loopholes. In this case, the bans proposed in the Reid 
amendment would go a long way toward disabusing people of the notion 
that nothing will change as a result of the reforms that we are 
debating today.
  Let me add one quick comment before I close. However good our rules 
are in the Senate or House, however well intentioned our rules are, it 
is critical that the rules be enforced. When we look at what has gone 
on in the House of Representatives over the last several years, a major 
problem there was not so much the rules but the failure to enforce the 
rules that exist, the failure to enforce them with respect to lobbyists 
and apparently with respect to Members of the House and with members of 
their staffs.
  I hope our work on lobbying reform sends the signal to the American 
people that we are serious about restoring their trust in us and in 
this institution. As we all know, that trust is absolutely essential to 
the good health of our democracy and of our country.
  I will yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2933. I ask the 
Senate to set aside the pending amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding it was agreed to by 
both sides, that I was to be recognized for the purpose of setting 
aside the amendment and calling up amendment No. 2933.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that was not what was agreed to, as I 
understand the question, from the Senator from Oklahoma. We have the 
Reid amendment, and then the next in order was going to be the 
Santorum-Dodd amendment. Then we were going to go to Senator Wyden, and 
then the consent was that the Senator from Oklahoma would be next in 
order, to offer his amendment and have debate at that point.
  Mr. INHOFE. If that is what you recall--that is certainly not the 
intention of this Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. Was that the way it was agreed to?

[[Page 2884]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not what the Chair recalls, but that 
is what I have been told was agreed to. I will defer to someone who was 
here before me.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask if our leader would defer for a question. I 
appreciate very much the Senator's attention. I have been down here 
since before the bill came up with the intention of being the first 
one. I yielded to Senator Santorum. We wanted to go back and forth. It 
was my understanding Senator Carper was recognized and I would be right 
after him and that time has arrived.
  What is the problem?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. He came here early 
on, ready to go. But there had already been discussion with Senator 
Santorum about being able to offer his amendment. We try to go back and 
forth from one side of the aisle to the other.
  Mr. INHOFE. Last I saw, Senator Carper was a Democrat.
  Mr. LOTT. He was just speaking. He didn't have an amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Chair what his understanding was of the 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, No. 1, we have an order of how amendments 
will go. On a separate track, we were debating the Reid amendment, and 
we were alternating back and forth, having speakers speak on the Reid 
amendment. That is where there seems be maybe a dichotomy. Senator 
Carper was going to speak next. Then Senator Inhofe would be able to 
speak next. That was my understanding.
  Mr. DODD. The two Senators from Illinois, I say to my colleague, want 
to be heard on the Reid amendment as well. We are losing some time. We 
might have some private conversations on other matters, but let's get 
through on the Reid amendment before the time expires.
  Mr. LOTT. Was there a request pending?
  Mr. DODD. It is an informal request.
  Mr. LOTT. What is the Chair's impression?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair can think for a minute, he will 
give it.
  Mr. INHOFE. While the Chair is thinking----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 10:37 an agreement was reached to have a 
vote on the Reid amendment at 11:30. At 11 o'clock, the following 
agreement was reached: Following the disposition the Reid amendment, 
which will be voted on at 11:30, the Senate will go to the Santorum-
Dodd amendment; following that, the Wyden amendment, and following 
that, the Inhofe amendment. That was the agreement reached at 11 
o'clock.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the leader yield for a request? If I do not take 
more than 2 minutes, may I go ahead and bring mine up, set the current 
amendment aside and bring it up so it will be in the mix?
  Mr. DODD. I will have to object to that. We have to talk about this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
  Mr. DODD. Let's sit down and talk about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. I yield a couple of minutes to my friend, Senator Obama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise briefly to support the amendment 
offered by Senator Reid. I also support the amendment that was 
introduced by Senator Dodd and Senator Santorum, of which I am a 
cosponsor. But let me focus on the particular provision in Senator 
Reid's bill, the honest leadership bill, that I think all of us should 
pay attention to, and that is the provision which closes a loophole 
that would still allow Members and staff to receive free meals from 
lobbyists up to $50 in value.
  On my way over to the floor, I passed a couple of security guards and 
Capitol police. I asked them how often lobbyists had bought them a 
meal. Surprisingly, they said none.
  I talked to the young women who help us on the elevators on the way 
up. I asked them: Has a lobbyist ever bought you a meal? The answer was 
``no.''
  In cities and towns all across America, it turns out people pay for 
their own lunches and their own dinners, people who make far less than 
we do, people who cannot afford their medical bills or their mortgages 
or their kids' tuitions. If you ask them if they think that people they 
send to Congress should be able to rack up a $50 meal on a lobbyist's 
time, what do you think they are going to say? You ask them if they 
think we should be able to feast on a free steak dinner at a fancy 
restaurant while they are working two jobs to put food on the table. I 
don't think we need a poll to find out the answer to that one.
  I want to be clear. In no way do I think that any of my colleagues or 
staffers would exchange votes for a meal. But that is not the point. It 
is not just the meal that is the problem, it is the perception, the 
access that the meals get you. In current Washington culture, lobbyists 
are expected to pick up the tab when they meet with Members or staff. 
It is understood by all sides that the best way to get face time with a 
Member is to buy them a meal. You don't see many Members eating $50 
meals with constituents who come into town to talk about issues on 
their minds, or with policy experts who are discussing the latest 
economic theories. Most of these meals that are taken are with 
lobbyists who are advocating on behalf of special interests. It 
diminishes perceptions, and it is something that I think has to stop.
  Let me close by saying this. If people are interested in meeting with 
lobbyists or having dinner with lobbyists, they can still do so. It is 
very simple. You pull out your wallet and pay for it.
  I strongly urge we support the Reid amendment. In addition, I 
strongly support the Dodd-Santorum amendment, of which I am a 
cosponsor.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Durbin from Illinois asked to be 
heard for 2 minutes as well. Senator Durbin has time during the day to 
comment on this.
  This is a very comprehensive amendment Senator Reid has offered. It 
strengthens what is, in my view, already a very strong bill of the 
Rules Committee. But it does close some gaps that I think are 
critically important. I hope we can develop some bipartisan support. It 
will take some issues we would have to debate later in the day off the 
table because they would be included in this amendment.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this. You may not 
agree with every single dotted ``i,'' as I said earlier, and crossed 
``t.'' But if you agree with the thrust of this, I think it deserves 
your support and it is one that would strengthen this bill on lobbying 
reform and the transparency and accountability issues, which are the 
hallmarks of this joint legislative effort.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the Reid 
amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer

[[Page 2885]]


     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The amendment (No. 2932) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I believe we are ready to go to the Dodd-
Santorum amendment.
  Mr. DODD. That is true. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has a 
unanimous consent request. I am prepared to yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. My request would be in conjunction with the Wyden 
amendment but also to bring up my amendment and set it aside so I would 
be in the mix, if that would be all right. So a couple minutes would do 
it.
  Mr. DODD. And you have asked unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of 
the Wyden amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me go ahead and propound that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, there is an amendment I had submitted on 
holds, and we have been trying to do this for quite some time. My good 
friends, Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, have been trying to do the 
same thing, and I think Senator Lott from Mississippi. So what I will 
do is not offer my amendment No. 2933 in favor of the Wyden-Grassley 
now Inhofe amendment that will be considered. That is my unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment No. 2934 be called up for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, that, as I understand it, is 
in the order after the Dodd-Santorum amendment and the Wyden-Grassley-
Inhofe amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. OK. We would be able to get it up and get it in without 
taking any time. If you want to go back to that order, that is fine.
  Mr. DODD. Yes. I would like to do that, if we could, just to maintain 
the order here.
  I believe what the Senator would do, Madam President, after the 
consideration of the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment, is then be next 
in line for his amendment. Is that the Senator's request?
  Mr. INHOFE. Well, my request is to go ahead and bring it up now, but 
that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, has the Chair ruled on the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, let me just say to the Senator, I do not 
believe we will be able to get a recorded vote before lunchtime on the 
Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe issue.
  We might be able to set that aside and take up yours and get it 
disposed of before lunch, if that would be convenient to the Senator. I 
am not asking that yet, but I believe we will probably do that.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if we could see the amendment our 
colleague would like to offer, it would be helpful to us. Why don't we 
do that while I am talking about this amendment, and then before we 
break from this, we can agree to what the Senator wants. I need to see 
what the amendment is.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would only say that the amendment has been at the desk 
as of 8 this morning. I assume you have already gone over the 
amendments.
  Mr. DODD. But I understand there are five amendments. I want to know 
which amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. This would be an amendment having to do with COLAs.
  Mr. DODD. Cost-of-living increases. If we could see the amendment, I 
will be glad--let me start and then he may offer that.
  I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Arizona, Senator 
McCain, and Senator Lieberman be added as cosponsors to the Santorum-
Dodd-Obama amendment. I believe that is what my colleague was 
interested in being heard on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2942, as Modified

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2942, as modified, 
on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, Senator Obama, Senator McCain, 
and Senator Lieberman. This is to extend the ban on gifts from 
lobbyists to include meals from lobbyists as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, this amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It would ban meals from lobbyists in the same way that 
the current bill bans all other gifts. For purposes of the Senate gift 
rule, it would ban meals outright.
  The Rules Committee has reported an amendment that bans all gifts. 
But in an effort to deal with the meal issue, the language of the 
underlying bill would allow for meals to be paid for by lobbyists but 
would require, within 15 days of receiving a meal from a lobbyist or a 
foreign agent, that the name of the person providing that meal and the 
value of the meal be disclosed on the Member's Web site. In effect, we 
are banning meals almost without language. The idea that every 15 days 
we would be reporting these meals probably would result in a ban 
outright anyway. But it is dangerous to leave language in there because 
Members could inadvertently forget to report, as well as staff members 
and the like. It seems to me the better course to follow is to ban 
these meals outright and to avoid any possible problems that may occur 
as a result of people having meals and failing to report these in an 
adequate way or to misreport the details. It unnecessarily creates a 
tripwire for staff who may attend meetings or events where food is 
served but where the value is difficult to determine. None of us want 
to do that.
  What we are trying to do with this bill is not to play gotcha or to 
catch people but to set some very clear bright lines about what is 
permissible or impermissible behavior. Clearly, you can make a case--
and Members have--that meals are very much a part of a culture where 
business is done. I know many Members and staff over the years have had 
meals where they discuss legislation or upcoming amendments. There is 
nothing inherently corrupt about it, but the meal is paid for. And the 
perception is that there is an undue advantage given to those who are 
able to take a Member or a senior staff member out for a meal, to then 
ask them to support a particular provision or oppose something. That 
creates the impression that Members are somehow being unduly 
influenced. I will not stand here and suggest that that is the case, 
but the perception could be that it is the case.
  All of us who serve in public life understand that perceptions are 
more real than reality in many cases, and the average citizen doesn't 
have the opportunity to do that. Members of our constituency who would 
like to talk to us rarely get the opportunity that a lobbyist has to 
sit down. I happen to believe that lobbying is a right. I think it is 
included in the first amendment of the Constitution to be able to 
petition your Government. I don't want to be party to things that limit 
people's ability to come and petition their Government. That is what it 
is really about.

[[Page 2886]]

  The word ``lobbyist'' has become a pejorative word associated with 
evil doing. The idea of petitioning your Government is a very important 
right, but I don't think it necessarily means that petitioning your 
Government gives you the right to then necessarily be able to give 
gifts or provide meals to the person whom you are petitioning. The 
average person can't do that. We don't think lobbyists should be able 
to do so as well.
  Our language very simply takes it off the table. It is the cleanest 
way to do it. I know there are fact situations that our colleagues can 
identify that are probably going to be disadvantageous to them, but 
overall I think we are better off without this. It is cleaner. It is a 
bright line. Let there be no questions about it whatsoever; if you are 
a registered lobbyist, a foreign agent, then you cannot provide the 
meals or the gifts that you have in the past.
  As a Member, it is simple. If you are having a meal with them, you 
pay for your own meal or set up a meeting where there is not a meal 
involved and listen to the petition that that lobbyist wants to bring 
to you, what cause he or she wants to make to you. But the idea that 
you are going to be able to sit down and break bread at their cost as a 
way of engaging in that first-amendment right is something we believe 
should be eliminated. We include it with the gifts, generally. The 
nexus between giving a gift, buying a meal, and petitioning your 
Government cannot be made, in my view, and, therefore, needs to be 
separated. Therefore, we have offered this amendment to create that 
bright line and to eliminate not only gifts but also clearly to 
eliminate the meals as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I echo the comments made by the 
Senator from Connecticut. He covered all the salient points. I did so 
earlier in a broader discussion on the bill. This really is a tripwire. 
The current language could cause all sorts of problems for Members and 
staff. The better policy is to simply ban this activity. That does not 
mean that you can't go out with people who aren't lobbyists, and if you 
have a constituent who has come into town and you can buy them dinner 
or lunch and they can buy you dinner or lunch, that is all well and 
good but subject to the gift limits that are in place right now. But 
when you are in the business of lobbying Members of Congress, as the 
Senator from Connecticut said, it does without question present the 
perception that there is some undue influence involved with the 
purchase of a meal.
  I understand that we are talking about small meals as well as large. 
But the bottom line is, that perception is not helpful to the image of 
this body. Perception and reality should be a concern of ours because 
public confidence in this institution and those of us in it is vitally 
important to the success of our democracy. This is an important 
measure. It is a small measure but it is important to get it 
accomplished. I hope we can do so by consent or by voice vote. I don't 
see anybody else on the floor. I don't know if the Senator from 
Mississippi wants to speak on this amendment, but I would like to 
suggest that we agree to this by voice vote and then have the Senator 
from Oklahoma, who has been incredibly patient in waiting to offer his 
amendment, be given the right to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for working with me 
on this amendment, and I thank my colleagues, Senator McCain from 
Arizona and Senator Obama, who have been deeply interested in this 
subject matter as well as others. There is a colleague who is thinking 
about offering a second-degree amendment to our amendment, so we will 
unfortunately not be able to vote on this right now. We are going to be 
talking to him to work it out if we can. My hope would be that unless 
others want to speak against this, and there may be Members who would 
like to speak against it, in which case a recorded vote may be 
necessary, but if we no one is objecting to this amendment, my hope is 
we can deal with it on a voice vote and get to the next amendment.
  I want to move this bill. I don't want to spend the next 2 or 3 weeks 
on it. We have major issues that have to be confronted by this body. 
This is an important one. I do not minimize it. But my hope is we can 
get this dealt with, done, and move on. We have issues that are very 
important to the people we represent. My hope is that we don't take too 
much time on that, and we can get to those questions.
  Mr. LOTT. If I may inquire of the Senator from Connecticut, is he 
proposing that we go ahead and accept this on a voice vote?
  Mr. DODD. We can't at this point. I have a colleague who wants to 
offer a second degree.
  Mr. LOTT. Then while the Senator from Connecticut talks to his 
colleagues and determines how we can work on that issue, I will make a 
few brief remarks.
  I want to say, again, to Senator Santorum how much I appreciate the 
work he has done. He didn't just try to find a way to give this issue a 
hit and miss; he got into great detail. I had a lot of questions as we 
went along on different aspects of his proposal. He was always able to 
give me thoughtful answers. I appreciate that very much. He worked in 
the Rules Committee, offered some amendments that were accepted. And in 
this case, he agreed to make it bipartisan, once again, by joining 
Senator Dodd on the meals question. I emphasize how much I appreciate 
what he has done.
  Frankly, I have no problem, personally, with banning lobbyists from 
paying for meals. Fine. Anybody around here who knows me at all knows 
that I probably do less of that than just about anybody. I have 
breakfast with my family: my kids, when they were still living at home 
before they went off to college, and my wife now. When the Sun goes 
down, I am ready to go home because I believe there is something called 
a life, family life. The Senate is not my only life. I think more of my 
wife than I do the Senate. I go home every night and eat with my wife. 
I recommend a lot of other people doing it instead of going to all 
these blame dinners.
  I am a little offended at the whole concept that you can be bought by 
a meal. I don't get it. That is where I do get upset. I think there are 
some things we need to do, should do, can do to make the rules tighter, 
to have more clarity, disclosure, transparency with regard to lobbying 
reform. I am going to go along with this because, personally, it will 
give me a fine excuse just to say ``no.'' But I think we are creating 
some unintended problems. The Rules Committee bill says that you must 
disclose the cost of such meals that you go to 15 days after you share 
the meal. To me, that is better. Are we going to stop eating? It might 
be a good idea for some of us, but I have been going to meals where you 
talk about issues since I was in elementary school.
  Again, I believe in being honest about it, disclose what you are 
doing, you have had a meal, whom it was with, and then let your 
constituents decide. They don't expect me to come up here and not go to 
a luncheon or a meal with school teachers or labor union members or 
executives from Northrop Grumman or lobbyists, somebody who represents 
a group, cable television. First of all, they are a source of 
information. I benefit from it. But I don't just go to lunch to meet 
with lobbyists from cable television. I also talk to telephone people. 
You talk to everybody. That is what our republican form of Government 
is all about. People are here to try to find out the details of issues 
and then try to cast an intelligent vote. The very idea that if I sit 
down with them or go to lunch with them or go to a dinner, which I 
generally don't, that is somehow questionable--no Senators are running 
up tabs of hundreds of thousands of dollars at the expense of 
lobbyists.
  By the way, the rules now say that the maximum value of a meal we can 
receive from a lobbyist is less than $50. I don't know that that is a 
great meal,

[[Page 2887]]

but you could have a pretty good meal. Being a guy who likes hamburgers 
and pizzas, I am very happy to get a meal of less than 50 bucks. But I 
do think if we call for a ban on all these meals, that we are going to 
have some unintended problems for ourselves and our staffs.
  What happens if you go to a luncheon that is sponsored by a lobbyist 
organization, maybe it is under $50, maybe you get a box lunch. Are we 
going to be scurrying around saying, what is my pro rata share of this 
lunch? Maybe we shouldn't go to these policy luncheons. That is what is 
going to happen. Or you go and you don't eat. It is totally ludicrous 
that we are doing this.
  But my attitude is, fine, if that is what the Senators want to do for 
themselves, no skin off my back. But I do think we are going to regret 
this, and we are going to look small. Not this amendment or the 
Senators involved, who are well intentioned, but I think we demean 
ourselves by inferring that we could be had for the price of a lunch or 
a dinner. That is not the case.
  Having said that, it is clear that in a bipartisan way the Senate 
wants to do this. So be it. I will be eating with my wife and so will a 
lot more Senators after we pass this one.
  Madam President, could I inquire, are we ready to deal with this 
amendment? Do we want to set it aside and go to another amendment?
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague would withhold, maybe we can temporarily 
set this aside if Senator Inhofe wanted to go forward with his 
amendment. He can explain his amendment. If the Senator would withhold 
a minute, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator withhold on that?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest to the Senator that if the 
Senator wants to offer a second-degree amendment, it sounds like it 
could be offered to just about every other amendment pending.
  Mr. DODD. And he could offer it as a first degree, also.
  Mr. INHOFE. If he should come on the floor--he or she--with a second-
degree amendment, I would be glad to suspend.
  Mr. DODD. My colleague is on his way over to offer the second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, Senator Inhofe has been so helpful and 
understanding. We have kind of, because of the effort to go back and 
forth, pushed him aside. I ask that in view of the fact that we are 
waiting for a Senator to arrive--I think the amendment Senator Inhofe 
wants to offer can probably be accepted. Would it be possible to ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and go to the 
Inhofe amendment and be prepared to come back to the pending amendment?
  Mr. DODD. That is fine.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I make that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2934

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I ask to bring up my 
amendment, No. 2934.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2934.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To deny Members who oppose Congressional COLA's the increase)

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

     SEC. __. AMOUNTS OF COLA ADJUSTMENTS NOT PAID TO CERTAIN 
                   MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Any adjustment under section 601(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) 
     (relating to the cost of living adjustments for Members of 
     Congress) shall not be paid to any Member of Congress who 
     voted for any amendment (or against the tabling of any 
     amendment) that provided that such adjustment would not be 
     made.
       (b) Deposit in Treasury.--Any amount not paid to a Member 
     of Congress under subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the 
     Treasury for deposit in the appropriations account under the 
     subheading ``medical services'' under the heading ``Veterans 
     Health Administration''.
       (c) Administration.--The salary of any Member of Congress 
     to whom subsection (a) applies shall be deemed to be the 
     salary in effect after the application of that subsection, 
     except that for purposes of determining any benefit 
     (including any retirement or insurance benefit), the salary 
     of that Member of Congress shall be deemed to be the salary 
     that Member of Congress would have received, but for that 
     subsection.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or 
     after February 1, 2007.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. I have 
always felt that the greatest single hypocrisy every year is when 
Members come up and vote to exempt Members of Congress from a cost-of-
living increase. The hypocrisy comes in when all the press releases hit 
the home State and they talk about how great this is, saying they are 
great reformers and then, of course, it is defeated and they end up 
taking the increase anyway.
  Basically, what this does is say if you vote in favor of an increase 
by voting against an exemption of Congress, then you are not entitled 
to the increase. It is as simple as that. I say this, too: I love the 
Kennedys and the Rockefellers, but I don't think you should have to be 
a Kennedy or a Rockefeller to serve in this body. I can think of many 
people, such as Senator Dan Coats--Democrats and Republicans alike 
would hold him up and say there is a guy who was an outstanding Member 
and he had to quit because of his kids getting up to college age, and 
he knew he would be able to make enough money to send them to school 
outside of serving in the Senate.
  If there is ever any transparency in stopping hypocrisy, that is what 
this would be. I am glad to have this in the mix, and when the 
appropriate time comes, I will call for a vote. It doesn't necessarily 
have to be a rollcall vote. I will leave that up to the leadership.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank Senator Inhofe for being 
cooperative and bearing with us. I am glad we were able to get this 
amendment on the record. I voted for this before. I think Senator Pat 
Moynihan one time rose up in indignation and suggested an amendment of 
this type, and I voted for it.
  I think it is well intentioned, something that we will need to think 
about and work on the exact language. I would propose, if Senator Dodd 
wants to be heard on it, OK; but if we can accept it after that, I 
recommend that we do that.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his patience this 
morning. He has been here a long time. He had several amendments he 
wanted to offer. Again, having been here as many years as I have been, 
I have voted for and against cost-of-living increases, depending on 
whether I thought they were appropriate. Many times I voted for them 
and other colleagues voted against them. To their credit, some of our 
affluent Members have voted for pay increases when they clearly could 
have avoided it. I mention my colleague from Massachusetts. I know in 
my experience here, on every occasion--there may be some exception--he 
has voted for them when he believed pay increases were warranted. Even 
though he may not have needed it himself, he understands that not 
everybody is equal when it comes to financial situations. I have had 
those feelings myself. I voted against these pay increases and then 
having blinked when it comes to taking the pay increase.
  If you feel that strongly about it and you think it is the wrong 
thing to do, nothing prohibits you from turning in your pay increase. 
You can write a check to the Department of Treasury and they will 
accept your check. People leave in their wills their hard-earned 
dollars to the Federal Government. On several occasions I have read 
that people have actually done that.

[[Page 2888]]

Nothing prohibits Members from doing that. So I am very moved by what 
my colleague from Oklahoma is saying, and we may want to wait until we 
have disposed of the Reid amendment so you can talk to colleagues as to 
how they feel about it.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I want to get a vote. If I had 
a chance to make my full remarks, I would go into more detail. I am one 
of the fortunate ones who have other sources of income. As most of you 
know, I also do things that go to charity. I am probably a logical one 
to introduce this. I have heard several Members on your side of the 
aisle say they are supportive, and I anticipate they will be adding 
their names as cosponsors of this amendment before it comes up for a 
vote.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I believe there is objection to accepting 
it at this time. I hope we will be able to get that worked out. If not, 
the Senator can speak at length. I feel so strongly about it, I ask 
unanimous consent that my name be included as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will soon ask unanimous consent to set 
aside the Inhofe amendment and return to the pending amendment, the 
Santorum/Dodd or the Dodd/Santorum amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam 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. Madam President, we have checked on both sides of the aisle 
and we are, I believe, clear now to accept the Inhofe amendment. I urge 
that the Inhofe amendment be accepted by a voice vote.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I support that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The amendment (No. 2934) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2942, as Modified

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we are back to the Dodd-Santorum 
amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, once again, let me thank my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, Senator Dodd for his efforts, and Senator 
Feingold for his cooperation in getting an agreement to move forward 
with the pending amendment. The pending issue is the Dodd-Santorum 
amendment, and I believe we are clear now to act on that amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote. Again, I thank my 
colleagues. I think this is a good amendment. I appreciate my colleague 
from Pennsylvania as well as my colleague from Illinois, and my home 
State colleague, Senator Lieberman, and Senator McCain, who have joined 
as cosponsors. I think we have made a good case for it, the bright line 
to get rid of the tripwires. That is a word you will hear me use quite 
frequently during the course of this discussion. We need clear, bright 
lines. We are not trying to complicate or make life difficult for 
people, but we are trying to make sure we have some very clear 
understandings as to what is permissible or not permissible in the 
conduct of our official business. So I thank my colleagues for their 
support.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before we move 
to the amendment at hand, Senator Feingold have his amendment in order 
following the Santorum-McCain amendment, and we will put it in the 
queue at that point. If it turns out not to be, we will work with the 
Senator at a later time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, let me say I appreciate the work of the Senators on 
this. Clearly what Senator Dodd did is an improvement. I, however, 
believe we need to do more. I don't see this as a question of 
tripwires. What I see this as is a question of whether certain often 
well-to-do individuals who work for companies, who are not themselves 
registered lobbyists, be able to take Members of Congress out to lunch 
without the Member paying his own way for dinner, and I want to offer 
an amendment on that. But I want to acknowledge that Senator Dodd has 
achieved a significant step in the right direction.
  I will offer my approach to this a bit later.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could modify my request, since I 
understand we had not gotten an agreement formally locked in. But after 
we dispose of the Dodd-Santorum amendment and the Wyden-Grassley 
amendment, the next amendment to be in order is the Santorum-McCain 
amendment, to be followed by the Feingold amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2942, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dodd 
amendment No. 2942, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2942), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________