[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1370-1375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency in the 
     legislative process.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 3, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid modified amendment No. 4 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     strengthen the gift and travel bans.
       DeMint amendment No. 12 (to amendment No. 3), to clarify 
     that earmarks added to a conference report that are not 
     considered by the Senate or the House of Representatives are 
     out of scope.
       DeMint amendment No. 14 (to amendment No. 3), to protect 
     individuals from having their money involuntarily collected 
     and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
       Vitter/Inhofe further modified amendment No. 9 (to 
     amendment No. 3), to prohibit Members from having official 
     contact with any spouse of a Member who is a registered 
     lobbyist.
       Leahy/Pryor amendment No. 2 (to amendment No. 3), to give 
     investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to combat 
     public corruption.
       Gregg amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 3), to establish a 
     legislative line item veto.
       Ensign amendment No. 24 (to amendment No. 3), to provide 
     for better transparency and enhanced congressional oversight 
     of spending by clarifying the treatment of matter not 
     committed to the conferees by either House.
       Ensign modified amendment No. 25 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     ensure full funding for the Department of Defense within the 
     regular appropriations process, to limit the reliance of the 
     Department of Defense on supplemental appropriations bills, 
     and to improve the integrity of the congressional budget 
     process.
       Cornyn amendment No. 26 (to amendment No. 3), to require 
     full separate disclosure of any earmarks in any bill, joint 
     resolution, report, conference report or statement of 
     managers.
       Cornyn amendment No. 27 (to amendment No. 3), to require 3 
     calendar days' notice in the Senate before proceeding to any 
     matter.
       Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 28 (to amendment No. 3), 
     to provide congressional transparency.
       Bennett (for McCain) amendment No. 29 (to amendment No. 3), 
     to provide congressional transparency.
       Lieberman amendment No. 30 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity.
       Bennett/McConnell amendment No. 20 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate 
     grassroots lobbying.
       Thune amendment No. 37 (to amendment No. 3), to require any 
     recipient of a Federal award to disclose all lobbying and 
     political advocacy.
       Feinstein/Rockefeller amendment No. 42 (to amendment No. 
     3), to prohibit an earmark from being included in the 
     classified portion of a report accompanying a measure unless 
     the measure includes a general program description, funding 
     level, and the name of the sponsor of that earmark.
       Feingold amendment No. 31 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit 
     former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying 
     activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their 
     cooling off period.
       Feingold amendment No. 33 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit 
     former Members who are lobbyists from using gym and parking 
     privileges made available to Members and former Members.
       Feingold amendment No. 34 (to amendment No. 3), to require 
     Senate campaigns to file their FEC reports electronically.
       Durbin amendment No. 36 (to amendment No. 3), to require 
     that amendments and motions to recommit with instructions be 
     copied and provided by the clerk to the desks of the majority 
     leader and the minority leader before being debated.
       Cornyn amendment No. 45 (to amendment No. 3), to require 
     72-hour public availability of legislative matters before 
     consideration.
       Cornyn amendment No. 46 (to amendment No. 2), to deter 
     public corruption.
       Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 48 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     require all recipients of Federal earmarks, grants, 
     subgrants, and contracts to disclose amounts spent on 
     lobbying and a description of all lobbying activities.

[[Page 1371]]

       Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 49 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     require all congressional earmark requests to be submitted to 
     the appropriate Senate committee on a standardized form.
       Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 50 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of 
     banning them as proposed.
       Bond (for Coburn) amendment No. 51 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     prohibit Members from requesting earmarks that may 
     financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of 
     that Member.
       Nelson (NE) amendment No. 47 (to amendment No. 3), to help 
     encourage fiscal responsibility in the earmarking process.
       Reid (for Lieberman) amendment No. 43 (to amendment No. 3), 
     to require disclosure of earmark lobbying by lobbyists.
       Reid (for Casey) amendment No. 56 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     eliminate the K Street Project by prohibiting the wrongful 
     influencing of a private entity's employment decisions or 
     practices in exchange for political access or favors.
       Sanders amendment No. 57 (to amendment No. 3), to require a 
     report by the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress 
     regarding political contributions before and after the 
     enactment of certain laws.
       Bennett (for Coburn) amendment No. 59 (to amendment No. 3), 
     to provide disclosure of lobbyist gifts and travel instead of 
     banning them as proposed.
       Bennett (for Coleman) amendment No. 39 (to amendment No. 
     3), to require that a publicly available Web site be 
     established in Congress to allow the public access to records 
     of reported congressional official travel.
       Feingold amendment No. 63 (to amendment No. 3), to increase 
     the cooling off period for senior staff to 2 years and to 
     prohibit former Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying 
     activities in addition to lobbying contacts during their 
     cooling off period.
       Feingold amendment No. 64 (to amendment No. 3), to prohibit 
     lobbyists and entities that retain or employ lobbyists from 
     throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party 
     conventions.
       Feingold/Obama amendment No. 76 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     clarify certain aspects of the lobbyist contribution 
     reporting provision.
       Feingold amendment No. 65 (to amendment No. 4), to prohibit 
     lobbyists and entities that retain or employ lobbyists from 
     throwing lavish parties honoring Members at party 
     conventions.
       Bennett (for Lott) amendment No. 78 (to amendment No. 4), 
     to only allow official and officially related travel to be 
     paid for by appropriated funds.
       Bennett (for Lott) amendment No. 79 (to amendment No. 4), 
     to only allow official and officially related travel to be 
     paid for by appropriated funds.
       Bennett modified amendment No. 81 (to amendment No. 4), to 
     permit travel hosted by preapproved 501(c)(3) organizations.
       Obama/Feingold amendment No. 41 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership 
     PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange 
     contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions 
     collected or arranged.
       Nelson (NE)/Salazar amendment No. 71 (to amendment No. 3), 
     to extend the laws and rules passed in this bill to the 
     executive and judicial branches of government.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we, as Members of Congress, owe it to 
the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, 
rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. 
An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. And, a 
democratic Government operates best in the disinfecting light of the 
public eye. With this bill, we have an opportunity to balance the right 
of the public to know with its right to petition Government; the 
ability of lobbyists to advocate their clients' causes with the need 
for truthful public discourse; and the ability of Members to legislate 
with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting 
influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the 
erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not 
become a collapse of confidence.
  I am pleased with the progress we have been making on this bill. We 
have been having a good debate on a range of proposals to further 
improve this bill, including requirements to reign in wasteful spending 
such as by more fully disclosing earmarks and granting the President's 
enhanced recision authority. We have recognized the need for increased 
disclosure and more timely reporting of lobbyists' activities. And, I 
am pleased that we are considering an amendment--one that I fully 
support--to require Members of Congress who use corporate aircraft to 
reimburse the full charter rate for a flight, instead of simply paying 
the cost of a first-class ticket, as required under the current rules. 
These are all solid proposals, but we need to do more.
  Madam President, on this issue of the first-class airfare, I don't 
think there is a more dramatic example of the difference between we 
Members of Congress and the average American citizen. No American 
citizen can today call up a corporation and say: Please let me use your 
airplane, and, by the way, I am only going to pay first-class airfare. 
Nothing is more egregious. There are worse abuses that go on around 
here, but there is no more egregious an example than the ability of a 
Member of Congress, who many times has oversight of the corporation 
that provides the aircraft, taking advantage of a situation where they 
only have to pay first-class airfare, with a difference of sometimes 
tens of thousands of dollars. It is remarkable.
  We need to reform earmarking beyond mere disclosure requirements. We 
need to curtail this practice, which cost American taxpayers $64 
billion in FY 2006, and I have offered an amendment to help do that. 
Above all, we need to ensure the enactment and enforcement of 
comprehensive lobbyist, ethics and earmark reforms. That is why we need 
to establish an Office of Public Integrity to help provide enforcement 
measures for the reforms that we are advocating. We can pass all the 
rules changes we want but unless we back them up with a tough 
enforcement mechanism, they are useless.
  On the issue of earmarks, Madam President--and I obviously have a 
long record of being opposed to these egregious examples of 
porkbarreling--I think that it is important for us to recognize that 
there are two ways we can address earmarking. One is to eliminate them 
and the other is to watch them grow. Over the previous 20 years, I have 
watched them grow and grow and grow and grow.
  I was intrigued by getting a call from an administration official who 
said the President is for cutting them in half. That is like saying we 
want to cut half of the drug dealers in America. There is an addiction 
in Congress to porkbarreling, and we have to cure the addiction or it 
will continue to grow.
  It is because of this need that I am pleased to again join my 
colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Collins, in cosponsoring an 
amendment to create an Office of Public Intergrity to investigate 
complaints of ethical violations by Senators, staff, or officers of 
this Chamber. Headed by a Director appointed by the President pro tem 
of the Senate upon the joint recommendation of the majority and 
minority leaders, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate 
complaints of rules violations filed with or initiated by the office. 
To ensure swift action, within 30 days of receiving a complaint, the 
office would be required to make an initial determination whether to 
dismiss or investigate it. Although a determination by the office to 
investigate may be overridden by the Select Committee on Ethics, the 
amendment stipulates that this can occur only if the Ethics Committee 
overrides the decision by a two-thirds vote and makes this vote public.
  To assist it in its investigation, the Office of Public Integrity 
would be empowered to issue subpoenas, take statements, and compel the 
attendance of witnesses. If, after investigation, the Director of the 
office determines that there is probable cause that a violation 
occurred, he or she must inform the Ethics Committee, which again, can 
decide not to proceed on a complaint, but only upon a two-thirds vote 
that must be made public. If the Ethics Committee does not overrule the 
office's determination of probable cause, the office shall present the 
case to the Ethics Committee which shall vote on whether the subject of 
the investigation violated any rules or other standards. Again, this 
vote must be made public. If the Ethics Committee finds there was a 
violation, the Director of the Office of Public Integrity shall 
recommend appropriate sanctions and whether the matter should be 
referred

[[Page 1372]]

to the Department of Justice for investigation.
  For 2 years, the Committee on Indian Affairs which I chaired at the 
time, investigated the actions of Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, 
and brought to light their efforts to manipulate the political process. 
If there is a silver lining to the Abramoff affair, it is that it 
helped to compel Congress to reassess the rules that govern our 
dealings with lobbyists and others who seek to influence us, and to do 
so through the eyes of the public, not through our own jaundiced 
perspectives. Frankly, I also believe the American public sent a clear 
message that business as usual in an unacceptable proposition. That is 
what drives our amendment today.
  Again, I point out that we investigated in the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs Mr. Abramoff and his connection, frankly, with both 
sides of the Capitol. There was never an Ethics Committee 
investigation. It was the Justice Department that finally had to take 
action. There was ample evidence of misbehavior in violation of the 
rules of both Houses, and here we are with people in jail and, as far 
as I know, the Ethics Committee never ruled on their behavior. So when 
I hear people say the Office of Public Integrity would somehow cause us 
embarrassment, are we not embarrassed by what already happened? Are we 
not embarrassed that Members of Congress violated their oath of office 
to the degree that they are in jail and the investigation continued on 
the part of the Justice Department?
  I say to the opponents of this amendment, in a perfect world, maybe 
you are right. In the world that we live in today, you are not right. 
We owe the American public a better system than the one that has been 
in place for the past several years.
  While strengthening the Senate rules regarding disclosure, gifts, 
meals, travel and post-employment lobbying is necessary and overdue, it 
is also of little importance if the rules are not enforced. Instances 
of apparent violations of congressional rules by Members and staff who 
were the beneficiaries of Mr. Abramoff's largesse were widely reported. 
Press accounts of luxury trips, high-priced tickets to sporting events, 
meals at expensive restaurants, and other gifts suggest that there had 
been flagrant, if not widespread, violations of our rules, and that 
these violations had been occurring for some time.
  As the columnist and scholar Norman Ornstein has observed, Congress 
has ``regularly struggled with its constitutional responsibility to 
police itself, sometimes verging on partisan vendettas--what we called 
in the 1980s and 1990s `the criminalization of partisan differences'--
but more often erring on the side of doing nothing, or as little as 
humanly possible, to deal with ethical violations.''
  At a time when the public is demanding change, the Senate needs to 
more aggressively enforce its own rules. We should do this not just by 
making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently 
undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body 
that regulates itself. By creating, as this amendment would do, a new 
office with the capacity to conduct and initiate investigations, and a 
perspective uncolored by partisan concerns or collegial relationships, 
I believe we can address this long-standing structural problem.
  This amendment strikes a good balance by keeping with the Select 
Committee on Ethics the final decisions on whether to conduct an 
investigation, whether a violation has occurred, and whether to refer 
the matter to the Department of Justice, while adding an independent 
voice to the process to ensure that the reputation of the institution 
is not sacrificed for the understandable concern for the reputation of 
one's friends and colleagues.
  The Office of Public Integrity would not only assist in performing 
existing investigative functions, but would also be charged with the 
new function of approving or denying requests for travel by Members and 
staff. The purpose of this pre-clearance is to ensure that the trips 
serve a legitimate Governmental interest, and are not substantially 
recreational in nature. I believe that the Office of Public Integrity 
would be an appropriate entity to conduct these reviews.
  I urge the majority and minority leaders to allow an up or down vote 
on this amendment. The American public is watching.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator 
Lieberman.
  Madam President, there are many organizations that are observing our 
activities. I think, as I said earlier, we can be pleased at some of 
the progress we are making. But this would be a seminal vote. This will 
be an indication that we are really serious, if we are really serious, 
about making sure that decisions made by the Ethics Committee are 
untainted by personal relationships or by other factors. I think it is 
long overdue.
  I want to point out again that in the exit polling from the 2006 
election there were two major issues that affected the voters' opinion 
and vote. One, as we all know, was the war in Iraq. The other was the 
issue of ``corruption in Washington.''
  The American public are very dissatisfied with the way Congress 
conducts its business. I have seen polls in the low twenties and even 
in the high teens of their approval rating of Congress. They don't 
think we conduct our business in an honest and straightforward manner, 
and they believe the special interests have way too much influence in 
determining both our priorities and the outcome of legislation.
  I believe the Lieberman amendment can go a long way toward restoring 
the very badly tarnished image of the Congress of the United States.
  I yield the floor, and 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. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 9

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to take a few minutes to urge my 
Senate colleagues to carefully study and support my amendment to ban 
spouses of sitting Members of the Senate from lobbying any Member of 
the Senate or any Senate staff person.
  This is a very important debate. It goes to the heart of rebuilding 
confidence of the American people in our institutions--Senate, House, 
all of Congress, all of the Federal Government.
  As we all know, we have seen scandal after scandal over several 
years, certainly involving both parties, that has, for obvious and good 
reason, rocked people's confidence.
  At the heart of almost all of these scandals is a very simple, basic 
issue and that is public officials using their public position to 
enrich themselves, to enrich their family, and, of course, the public 
interest being sold down the road.
  That is at the heart of this debate, and that concern is at the heart 
of my amendment. Again, my amendment--we will vote on this later this 
week--says very simply: No spouse of a sitting Member of the Senate can 
lobby the Senate, can lobby that Senator, can lobby that Senator's 
office, can lobby any Senator, can lobby any Senate office, can lobby 
any Senate committee.
  Again, I don't think this is a peripheral issue. I think it goes to 
the heart of the matter: People using public office to enrich 
themselves, to enrich their families.
  For the same reason, I thought it was important that we prohibit 
family members from going on the campaign payroll. Unfortunately, that 
was voted down. I think this is even more in need of strong action 
because certainly lobbying connections were at the heart of so many of 
the scandals that got us to this debate.
  There are two big problems, two big conflicts we are talking about 
that this amendment can largely solve. One is for certain lobbyists to 
have undue influence. That is clearly an issue with regard to lobbying 
of spouses of sitting Members of the Senate.
  The underlying bill would prohibit those spouses from lobbying their

[[Page 1373]]

spouse Member, that office. That is fine. But clearly, any Senate 
spouse is going to have an enormous advantage in terms of access and 
influence to other Senators and other Senate offices. Imagine if a 
spouse lobbyist walks in the door and his or her spouse happens to be 
the chair of a committee on which the Member she is lobbying sits. That 
is a pretty significant power relationship right in the midst of that 
lobbying. Clearly, there is that real danger of undue influence and 
access.
  There is a second problem too. In my opinion, the second problem is 
even bigger than the first, and that is for a special interest, for a 
monied interest, to have a mechanism to write a big check straight into 
the family bank account of a sitting Senator, to directly and 
dramatically increase the income, the personal wealth of a sitting 
Senator. That absolutely happens whenever you are going to allow 
spouses of sitting Senators to lobby.
  Again, that I think is an even bigger issue and certainly has been 
front and center in terms of a number of problems and scandals that 
have come up and reported fully in the media in the last couple of 
years on both sides of the aisle.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that this recent article 
about the problem, about that very issue in the Washington Post be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2007]

             Lawmakers' Lobbying Spouses Avoid Hill Reforms

                           (By John Solomon)

       When Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) rose to the Senate floor 
     last summer and passionately argued for keeping the federal 
     estate tax, he left one person with an interest in retaining 
     the tax unmentioned.
       The multibillion-dollar life-insurance industry, which was 
     fighting to preserve the tax because life insurers have a 
     lucrative business selling policies and annuities to 
     Americans for estate planning, has employed Dorgan's wife as 
     a lobbyist since 1999.
       A few months earlier, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) had 
     pleaded for restraint as she urged colleagues to avoid 
     overreacting to the news that the Bush administration had let 
     a United Arab Emirates company take over operations at six 
     U.S. ports. At the same time, her husband, Robert J. Dole, a 
     former senator and presidential nominee, was registered to 
     lobby for that company and was advising it on how to save the 
     deal from the political firestorm.
       At least half a dozen congressional spouses have jobs as 
     registered lobbyists and several more are connected with 
     lobbying firms, but reining in the practice to prevent 
     potential conflicts or the appearance of them has not been a 
     priority among congressional leaders. Even modest proposals 
     such as banning wives and husbands from lobbying their 
     spouses or using their spouses' floor privileges for lobbying 
     have gone nowhere.
       Democrats made ethics reform a major issue in last fall's 
     congressional elections, but the ethics package the House 
     approved earlier this month didn't address the issue and 
     neither did the one proposed by Senate Democrats. Last week, 
     however, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) proposed banning spouses 
     of senators from lobbying any part of the chamber. The lone 
     exception is for spouses who were lobbying at least one year 
     before their husband or wife was elected.
       The Senate is scheduled to vote on the legislation as soon 
     as today. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) 
     called Vitter and said he would support the proposal with one 
     caveat: It should exempt spouses who are already lobbyists.
       ``As long as it is not retroactive, Senator Reid supports 
     efforts to ban spouses of sitting members from lobbying in 
     the future,'' spokesman Jim Manley said. Vitter said he will 
     not support Reid's proposal. ``I think this goes to one of 
     the fundamental issues in this whole debate and that is 
     officeholders using their office to increase their personal 
     and family income. It doesn't get any more basic than that,'' 
     Vitter said.
       Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, a 
     nonpartisan group that studies political donations and ethics 
     in Washington, said that if senators decide that a lobbying 
     ban is necessary, it makes no sense to exempt current 
     spouses.
       ``If there is a problem here, it is that family members can 
     get access to lawmakers that other people don't. And if they 
     exempt the current spouses, then they are making it all the 
     more exclusive. Those family members will seem all the more 
     special.''
       Vitter's legislation does not apply to the House. It also 
     does not address lawmakers' siblings and children, another 
     growth area in lobbying. Vitter said he wanted to make the 
     plan broader but was not assured of a vote, so he scaled it 
     back to Senate spouses.
       Elected to the Senate in 2004, Vitter took an initial foray 
     into ethics reform more than a year ago, proposing the 
     spousal lobbying ban as well as the end of large tribal 
     donations like those seen in the Jack Abramoff lobbying 
     scandal. But his plans went nowhere when his own party was in 
     charge.
       Vitter had garnered scrutiny during the scandal when it was 
     learned that, as a House member in 2002, he had written a 
     letter opposing a casino for an Indian tribe that rivaled 
     Abramoff's clients. Vitter had taken donations from 
     Abramoff's tribal clients but had refunded the money. He said 
     he always has opposed gambling.
       With Democrats in control of Congress and promising broad 
     ethics reform, Vitter tried again. Last week the Senate 
     rejected another of his proposals--one to end the practice of 
     lawmakers hiring relatives and paying them with Senate 
     office, campaign or political action committee money.
       Typically, according to their offices, those senators with 
     lobbyist-spouses do not let their spouses lobby them or their 
     staff personally. The rest of the Senate and Congress, 
     however, is usually fair game.
       Robert Dole's office said that while he registered to lobby 
     for DP World, he never contacted the Senate and instead 
     focused on giving advice. Nonetheless, his work during the 
     political firestorm over port security helped earn his firm 
     $320,000 in the first half of 2006, records show.
       Kimberly Olson Dorgan is registered as a lobbyist for the 
     American Council of Life Insurers and worked on several 
     issues, including the estate tax. She now has moved into an 
     executive job. Barry Piatt, a spokesman for Byron Dorgan, 
     said that the senator long opposed repealing the estate tax, 
     that his position was consistent with that of most Democrats 
     and that his wife's job had no bearing.
       Piatt noted that Dorgan once was at odds with his wife's 
     lobby when he supported exempting income under $10 million 
     from the estate tax.
       Though the Dorgans built a voluntary wall between them, it 
     doesn't extend to the senator's reelection campaign. His 
     wife's lobbying group gave the senator's campaign $2,000 from 
     its political action committee in 2004. And other life 
     insurers have donated tens of thousands of dollars to 
     Dorgan's campaign, Federal Election Commission records show.
       Among the other senators with lobbyist wives are Ted 
     Stevens (R-Alaska) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
       Catherine A. Stevens has been a registered lobbyist for the 
     Washington firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, whose past 
     clients include media giant Bertelsmann AG and the famed King 
     Ranch in Texas, lobbying records show. She did not return 
     calls to her office seeking comment.
       Lucy Calautti, Conrad's wife and a former chief of staff to 
     Dorgan, is registered to lobby for Major League Baseball's 
     commissioner's office, which paid her firm at least $360,000 
     in the first half of 2006, according to the most recent 
     lobbying reports on record with the Senate. She did not 
     return calls to her office seeking comment. Conrad spokesman 
     Chris Thorne said that the senator and his wife have a firm 
     rule prohibiting her from lobbying his Senate office and 
     staff.
       On the House side, Abigail Blunt, the wife of House 
     Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), has lobbied for years for 
     Altria Group, the parent company for Kraft Foods and tobacco 
     firm Philip Morris. The couple were married in 2003 and 
     decided about a year ago that Abigail would no longer lobby 
     any part of the House, Blunt's office said yesterday. And 
     Jennifer LaTourette, the wife of Rep. Steven C. LaTourette 
     (R-Ohio), has been registered in recent years to lobby for 
     several interests, including health-care companies and 
     Cleveland's port authority.
       Other congressional spouses have ties to lobbying even 
     though they aren't formally registered in Washington. Ray 
     Hutchison, the husband of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), 
     works at the Vinson & Elkins firm, whose lobbying clients 
     have included corporate giants such as 7-Eleven, Goldman 
     Sachs and Halliburton.
       Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin's wife, Loretta 
     Durbin, runs a lobbying firm called Government Affairs 
     Specialists. But Durbin's office said she limits her lobbying 
     to their home state of Illinois and recuses herself from any 
     federal matters that could affect her husband's work in the 
     Senate.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. VITTER. Certainly.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding, initially, the Senator's 
amendment had a grandfather clause. Does it now contain that 
grandfather clause?
  Mr. VITTER. No, it does not. I appreciate the question. In developing 
this amendment, we dealt with a lot of different ideas and a lot of 
different versions. I mistakenly filed a version with the grandfather 
clause in it. That was never my intent, in terms of filing an amendment 
in this Congress and in

[[Page 1374]]

this debate. As soon as I learned that from my staff, I amended the 
amendment, and so it does not contain that grandfather clause.
  My thinking is very simple. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a 
conflict, it is a conflict. If it is a problem, it is a problem. And 
because somebody has been doing it for a few years doesn't right the 
wrong.
  I do have an exception, which is different from a grandfather clause. 
I bent over backward to try to meet every reasonable argument. The 
exception says: If the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more 
before the marriage or a year or more before the Member's first 
election to Congress, that is a bit of a different situation that is 
allowed.
  I can make an argument for even doing away with that exception, but I 
tried to bend over backward for what I considered any legitimate 
argument.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, may I ask a second question?
  Mr. VITTER. Certainly.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So anyone who doesn't meet the specific confines of 
the Senator's bill would be forced to lose their job; is that correct?
  Mr. VITTER. No, it is not correct, for the following reason: My 
amendment, first of all, applies only to Senate spouses lobbying the 
Senate. It doesn't apply to the House, it doesn't apply to Federal 
agencies, it doesn't apply to State legislatures. It doesn't apply to 
all sorts of other things. To be quite honest and direct, I would like 
to have it apply more broadly to all of Congress, but to make my 
amendment germane, I have to forgo that.
  I think that is a direct answer to the Senator's question.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SALAZAR addressed the Chair.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I wish to emphasize what I stated to the 
distinguished Senator from California. I tried to meet every legitimate 
argument. I bent over backward with regard to that issue. Specifically, 
I point out that the exception in my amendment that says, quite simply, 
if the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more prior to the 
marriage or a year or more prior to the Member's first election to the 
House or Senate, then that is an exception, and they can continue 
lobbying.
  Every other case is a real problem, a real conflict, and specifically 
I don't think a grandfather clause that protects folks who are doing it 
now is appropriate. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a conflict, 
it is a conflict. If it poses real ethical questions--that is true 
whether one has been doing it for 10 years or whether one starts 
tomorrow--I urge all the Senate to reject that grandfather clause.
  The message of a grandfather clause is simple: Yes, we are going to 
get serious about ethics, as long as it doesn't do anything in 
practice, as long as it doesn't affect our friends.
  I don't think that is the right policy. I don't think that is the 
right message.
  I urge all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this 
amendment. The American people are watching this debate. They have seen 
the leadup to this debate. They have seen the scandals. They have seen 
the rhetoric in the campaigns, and they are wondering: Is this going to 
be real or is this going to be a farce?
  We have had some votes, quite frankly, that are leading folks to 
believe this is a lot of show, a lot of sound and fury with nothing 
behind it. I hope we can prove those cynics wrong, but I have to admit, 
I am quickly becoming one of those cynics.
  I believe this vote is going to say a lot about how serious we are. 
If there is a vote on the grandfather clause issue, that is going to 
say a lot about whether we are going to act when it has a consequence 
in this body or just act when it doesn't affect anybody in this body as 
it stands now.
  Madam President, I urge all my colleagues to look at the amendment, 
support the amendment, certainly resist any grandfather clause which 
would be horrible policy, and send a very simple message to the 
American people. I look forward to a fuller debate on the issue and a 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                            Amendment No. 71

  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
amendment No. 71, which was offered and cosponsored by myself and 
Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska. The essence of the amendment we 
offered last night is to try to make sure that as we move forward with 
ethics reform in Washington, DC, a spotlight not just be on the Senate 
or the House of Representatives but that the ethics standards we are 
moving forward with in this legislation, which will be a hallmark piece 
of legislation for Washington and for our Nation's Government, that 
those same kinds of high ethical standards should also apply to the 
senior executive officials of the executive branch of Government, as 
well as to the judicial branch of Government.
  The essence of our amendment is to say, as we clean up Washington, 
DC, that we ought not to stop simply by cleaning up the affairs of the 
Congress; that what we ought to do is adopt a set of ethical standards 
that will also apply to the executive branch and to the judicial branch 
of Government.
  As we move forward with that principle, what we have tried to do in 
this amendment is very simple. Let me discuss three important aspects 
of this legislation.
  First, our amendment would apply to the gift and travel ban--which 
will become the rules of this Senate on passage of this bill--to senior 
and very senior executive and judicial branch personnel. After passage 
of this bill, we in the legislative branch will operate under a 
stringent set of rules which will ban gifts and travel from lobbyists, 
among other things. Currently, executive branch personnel can, with few 
exceptions, accept gifts, except from a few so-called prohibited 
sources. Simply put, there is no reason why lobbyists should be able to 
give gifts--no matter how small--to senior employees of the executive 
and judicial branches.
  Second, the amendment would ban all executive branch personnel from 
lobbying their former agency for 1 year after leaving Government 
service. Currently, the revolving door rules in the executive branch 
apply only to senior and very senior personnel. That means junior 
employees of any executive branch agency are permitted to go directly 
from a Government job to a position of lobbying their former office. 
That, in my view, is an unethical thing to do. Meanwhile, here in the 
Senate, all Members and staff are subject to at least some form of a 
revolving-door rule, and the bill we are debating would strengthen 
those rules for the Senators as well as for staff. Simply put, there is 
no reason the executive branch personnel, no matter how junior, should 
be permitted to lobby their former office immediately upon leaving 
Government service.
  Third, the amendment would require senior and very senior executive 
branch personnel to disclose to the Office of Government Ethics any 
negotiation for private employment within 3 business days. The bill we 
are now debating would require Senators and senior Senate staff to 
disclose to the Ethics Committee that they are negotiating for private 
employment within 3 business days. There is no principled reason this 
rule should not apply equally to senior executive branch employees as 
well.
  This is a narrowly drafted attempt to apply some of the key 
provisions of this bill to other branches of Government. It is based on 
both principle and practical concerns. The principle is that ethics 
rules should apply uniformly across the Government of the United 
States. The practical concern is that key Government personnel should 
not accept any gifts from parties seeking action by the Government, 
that all legislative and executive employees should adhere to minimum 
revolving-door standards, that senior officials should not negotiate 
for future employment in secret, and that negotiations should be fully 
disclosed.
  I support Senator Nelson's amendment, and I urge my colleagues in the

[[Page 1375]]

Senate to accept this amendment as we move forward in an effort to try 
to clean up Washington, DC. At the end of the day, this is much more 
than just about dealing with the ethics issues of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives; this should be an effort from all of us to 
send a loud and clear signal to the people of America that we are 
taking ethics seriously and that we are going to bring a new standard 
of conduct, a new standard of ethics across all the branches of our 
Nation's Government.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to ask a couple of 
questions about the Vitter-Inhofe amendment, amendment No. 3. I think 
it is one thing if the amendment is prospective and doesn't affect 
people. I think it is another thing when it is retroactive. I believe 
our side would accept the amendment if it were, in fact, prospective.
  The amendment has a complicating factor in addition to that; that is, 
there is a prohibition against any official contact with any spouse of 
a Member who is a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act. That is not any lobbying contact, it is official contact. Now, 
what is official contact? Does this mean the spouse, if he or she 
happens to have been a lobbyist for a substantial period of time, 
cannot attend the Supreme Court dinner which just took place? That 
could be interpreted as an official contact. Is it an official contact 
if the individual calls the scheduler of her husband's or his wife's 
office and asks for some information on the schedule? I am surprised--
and I didn't know this--that this amendment has the words ``official 
contact.'' You can be sure that even if it said: Well, it is not an 
official contact, that someone will make the argument: Oh yes, it is an 
official contact if you attend the Supreme Court dinner with your 
spouse.
  Again, I would repeat, this is retroactive legislation. We know it 
affects people in this body who have worked, helped support their 
families. I don't recall another time when we have enacted this kind of 
legislation.
  So it concerns me, and it concerns me if it is overly repressive, 
such as using the words ``official contact.'' I am puzzled as to why, 
when the majority leader offered that if it had a grandfather clause, 
we would accept it, it wasn't taken, unless the intent is essentially 
to sever people from their ability to have anything to do with this 
body, whether it is simply as a spouse or as a professional.
  So I have some concerns about this amendment, and I wanted to take 
this opportunity to express them, and hopefully the author will 
respond.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for 
those points and questions. Let me respond to each one.
  First, I think what you said, literally at the very beginning of your 
comments, says it all. You said this would be fine if it didn't affect 
anyone, but it does. This would be window dressing if it didn't affect 
anyone, if it did not do anything. But, yes, it does. And it should.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield, please?
  Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to, after I finish my comment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Because I said ``presently employed,'' if I may, 
through the Chair. To clarify that, I said anybody ``presently 
employed.'' We know it affects people. We know it would affect people 
in the future. We also know it affects people presently employed.
  Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, the point is, yes, it is a great vote 
as long as it doesn't affect anyone here, as long as it doesn't affect 
anyone in the body now, as long as it doesn't affect any spouse.
  I disagree. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it is a 
problem, it is a problem. Having done it in the past doesn't cure the 
conflict, doesn't cure the problem. I think demanding that a 
grandfather clause be attached to this is the height of cynicism. We 
are going to reform things as long as it doesn't affect us. I think 
that is bad policy and I certainly think it is a very negative message 
to send to the American people--although it may be a rather clear 
message about what this debate and exercise is all about.
  In terms of the question about official contact, I think that is very 
clear because it is in the context of the lobbyist disclosure law. It 
is in the context of lobbyist contact. However, if the Senator 
continues to believe it is not clear and wants to offer any clarifying 
language, I would look at that and work with the Senator. I will be 
happy to work on clarifying language. Obviously, no one wants to 
prohibit spouses from going to the Supreme Court dinner or anything 
else. I think that is a relatively--I don't think it is a problem. But 
even if you think it is one, I believe it is an easy problem to solve.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield for a moment.
  Mr. VITTER. Certainly.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, on line 5, if you substituted 
``lobbying'' for ``official,'' I think that would do it.
  Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to look at that and respond to that 
suggestion. Certainly, if there is any ambiguity there, and I don't 
think there is, I will be eager to clarify it and work on it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. VITTER. Again, I think this goes to the heart of the matter. I 
think this grandfather clause issue goes to the heart of the matter. 
Are we going to do something that ``doesn't affect anybody,'' that 
doesn't matter in terms of people here and now and make a big show of 
it or are we going to make a difference and stop practices that the 
huge majority of the American people think are a real problem?
  I hope we are going to do the latter. I hope we are going to be real 
and substantive and not go through a PR exercise, and I think the 
American people are watching to find out. I think this, among other 
votes, will be a clarifying moment.
  I thank the Senator for her questions and I look forward to 
continuing the discussion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I may, I thank the Senator. 
Perhaps our staffs can get together directly and take a look at this. I 
appreciate it.

                          ____________________