Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, may I make a quick response to the Senator from California before we hear from the Senator from Pennsylvania? I will not take more than a minute or two.

Mr. BENNETT. I simply want to make this point with respect to the threshold that causes people to come under the provisions of the bill. There is, indeed, a $10,000 minimum for a 3-month period threshold in the bill, but section 220(b)(1) explicitly removes ``paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying'' from the scope of this exemption. In other words, $1 per quarter spent to stimulate citizens to communicate with their representatives in Congress triggers the registration and reporting requirement for an individual who meets the other four numbered criteria. I agree with the Senator from California. This is very badly drafted and needs an awful lot of work, which is why I think the best thing to do with it is simply strike it.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I don't want to get deep into this confrontation between the two leaders, but I say to my good friend from Illinois--and he is my good friend--that I was present at the Republican luncheon and there was no indigestion on this bill. I was asked by the Republican leader to present where we are on the floor to the members of the conference. By the way, our rule is that we don't discuss anything that happens in the Republican conference, so I am bending that rule. We are allowed to at least discuss what we personally say. So I will not disclose what anybody else said, but I will bend the rule a little to characterize it. I made the presentation as to where we were on the floor. There was no pushback whatsoever to the idea that we should pass this bill. There was no suggestion from any Member of the Republican conference that this bill should be taken down by some subterfuge. The Senator from New Hampshire has gone to the leader and made a request. The leader has responded to the request, feeling that the Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to a vote. We are where we are. The leaders will make their decision and have their discussion. I want to make the record as clear as I possibly can that any Republican who wants to use this as a subterfuge to take down the bill has not made his or her position known to me or to the leader. There is no suggestion of that at all of which I am aware.

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Mississippi for that explanation. I simply want to add a little bit of history, which I did previously, to his comments. He said when he saw how President Clinton used the line-item veto he began to wonder if he hadn't, in fact, made a mistake by supporting it. I supported the line-item veto. When I saw how President Clinton used it, I was sure I had made a mistake. Here on the floor and in the debate with Senator Moynihan and Senator Byrd, I made the commitment that I would never support the line-item veto again because it was used in a way I had not anticipated. It was used in a way very different from the way State legislatures have dealt with the line-item vetoes that Governors had. That was my rationale for supporting it. I said: The Governors have it and it works; why shouldn't the President have it? That is because I didn't understand the way the Congress really works. So I said I will never support a line-item veto again. When the White House called me and said, We need your vote on this, I said, You won't get it. And then when I saw the details of what the Senator from New Hampshire has crafted, I realized, as he has pointed out, that it is crafted with the Supreme Court rescission in mind, with the history of the experience with President Clinton in mind, and I am now willing to support the enhanced rescission legislation the Senator from New Hampshire has proposed because, as he has said, this is not the line-item veto. Our friends in the press like a quick headline that they think everybody can understand, and they use the headline ``line-item veto,'' and then it sticks. In fact, that is not what it is, and a careful reading of the bill makes it clear that is not what it is. If, indeed, that were what it was, I would vote against it. But I am hoping the Democratic leader, the majority leader, can work out something which can give the opportunity for this to be brought forward, debated, and then voted on. I do note, as the Senator from New Hampshire has noted, that in order for it to pass, it would require 60 votes. So if, indeed, there are 41 votes against it, the logical thing to do is bring it up, kill it, and let us move forward. But apparently there are not 41 votes against it. I don't know, but I am guessing. So we are where we are. I am hoping it all gets worked out because I think we are close to getting this bill done. I think it is a bill that both sides can vote for overwhelmingly. I have enjoyed working with the chairman of the committee in getting reasonable adjustments in the bill, and it would be a shame to see all of that hard work go down the drain if we can't get this resolved. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest on the television when my friend from Connecticut was responding to my amendment, talking about the grassroots or astroturf kinds of lobbyists. I was struck as usual with my friend's good intentions. I am reminded once again of a comment I made, which the Presiding Officer heard me make, which is hard cases make bad law. The Abramoff situation was clearly a matter of money laundering. It had little or nothing to do with lobbyists. He found a way to use a particular activity in order to channel contributions from one of his clients back to himself in fees that would be hidden. That is being offered as a reason why we need to adopt this amendment with respect to grassroots organizations. My friend from Connecticut talked about simply disclosure. Everybody who does this ought to say what they are doing, and we are not stopping them. Yes, they have their constitutional right to do this. And yes, it is a proper thing for them to do, so long as it all gets disclosed. Because if Abramoff had been forced to disclose, he wouldn't have been able to launder the money. That sounds enormously reasonable. But as I listened to the details, comparing them to my knowledge of the underlying bill, I realized, once again, this is being crafted with an eye toward the astroturf lobbyists, without an understanding of how chilling an effect it will have on genuine grassroots kinds of activities. As the ACLU pointed out in its letter, the reporting requirements are so heavy and so onerous and now, as a result of an amendment we have previously adopted, carry with them a $200,000 fine, if they are inadvertently broken, that it will have a chilling effect on many groups who will decide they simply don't want to run the risk. We simply don't want to expose ourselves to this. Someone who inadvertently violates the law or violates the reporting requirements which we would be putting into the law, who accepts a relatively small amount of money for his services but somehow triggers the amount listed in the bill, finds himself or herself subject to a $200,000 fine for each incident. And even if that individual goes to court and gets it set aside, the legal costs will clearly go above $200,000. To what end? Members of Congress are fully aware of how these astroturf campaigns are mounted. We understand when we are the target of one of these. I don't know a single Member of Congress who can be swayed by this kind of thing, if, in fact, the underlying legislation is bad legislation in the opinion of the Member of Congress. I know many of these people do this to make a living, and they convince their Members that it is a worthwhile kind of thing. They will still continue to do that, the big ones. This is not something that is part of any culture of corruption. We cannot point to anybody who has been overwhelmed by these and, therefore, changed his mind on a particular piece of legislation. Let's have a little understanding of the way the system works and a little common sense about how Congress responds, about how people try to bring particular pressure points upon them. I respect my friend from Connecticut. I think his reading of the law is obviously very careful. But I come back to exactly the same position I did before in my earlier statement. This will have a chilling effect on honest, responsible, legitimate grassroots kind of activity, because the people who engage in that kind of activity will be afraid that their exposure to a $200,000 fine is too great. And it will be easier for them to say: Never mind. People who do the astroturf kind of thing, where they are big enough and they have enough money, they have enough legal background, file all their reports and will continue to do it. The reports will be filed, and no one will pay any attention to them. I often say the best place to hide a leaf is on the floor of the forest surrounded by all of the other leaves. There will be a blizzard of reports coming from the big people who can afford to do this, and there will be a chilling effect on the little people who will be very nervous about the exposure we have built into this bill. In the previous bill passed by the Senate that had this provision in it, the fine was $50,000. That was serious enough. Now that the fine is $200,000, I am getting all kinds of concern from all kinds of groups that are not professional astroturf lobbyists but legitimate grassroots groups that are very anxious that this is going to, in effect, hamper their ability to exercise their constitutional rights. Will it legally prevent them from exercising their rights? No, it won't. Will it practically prevent them from doing so? Yes, in all probability, it will. And the result is simply not worth that kind of risk to run. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, on this amendment I wish to give them the names of the groups that would likely be prohibited from sponsoring educational travel, unless this amendment is adopted: Aspen Institute, Transatlantic Policy Network, Save the Children, CARE, Global Health Council, Population Action International. For those who think this is a loophole that Jack Abramoff could drive through, I point out that the amendment requires the Ethics Committee to vet each program in advance, examine who is going, whether there would be a lobbyist present, and what the purpose is. If you vote against this amendment, in my view, you are expressing a vote of no confidence in the chairman and ranking member of the Ethics Committee, Senators Boxer and Cornyn. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. I yield back my time.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside and call up two amendments, one on behalf of Senator Coburn, No. 59, and one on behalf of Senator Coleman, No. 39, and then have them laid aside as well.

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments now be laid aside.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have listened with interest to the Senator from Vermont. I have a few quick reactions. As we get closer to his amendment, I will perhaps be more specific about some of them. Comments about the revolving door situation, I must confess I am a little less than overwhelmed by the arguments about the revolving door because I have been there. I served in the executive branch in the 1960s, left on New Year's Eve of 1969, and took up my new duties as a lobbyist on January 1, 1970. In those days there were no restrictions with respect to a revolving door, and I was immediately called by people who wanted my services with respect to the agency I had just left. They paid well. I accepted their contracts, and I went back to see my old friends back in the Department of Transportation. It came as somewhat of a shock to me that no one wanted to talk to me. Now that I was no longer a member of the Secretary's Office, now that I no longer had direct access to the Secretary to discuss things important to the administration, now that I was an outsider, my friends were happy to see me for lunch, they were happy to talk about my family, but I could no longer do them any good within the Department. I was no longer a power within the Department. I was an outsider, and they were happy to get me out of their offices as quickly as they could. I discovered firsthand that the idea of the revolving door is vastly overrated. I was like any other lobbyist. I had to make my points on the basis of the validity of the arguments I was making and not because at one time I had been in the Department with them. We get carried away with this because the media talks about how terrible is the revolving door. I am willing to let a reasonable period of time pass, but I think many of these arguments go beyond what reality has been to me. I heard the Senator from Vermont talk about publicly funded campaigns. I will make this observation: We have the largest poll taken in the United States every year on April 15. Every year, every American taxpayer is given the opportunity to set aside just $3 of taxes he already owes--this is not additional money; this is $3 of the money he already owes--to be placed in the Presidential fund to fund Presidential campaigns. Ninety percent of the taxpayers who have the opportunity to put $3 into a Federal fund for education vote no. That is not by accident. You have to check the box one way or the other. Ninety percent vote, no, they don't want to do that. I am not sure we should be talking about that as a great idea. Finally, the business that is in the amendment of the Senator from Vermont that says we must disclose corporate contributions 24 months prior to and 6 months after the passage of certain pieces of legislation neglects the fact that corporate contributions are illegal, and they have been since 1902 in the days of Franklin Roosevelt. What the press calls ``corporate contributions''--the press misunderstands-- are PAC contributions. I was around Washington when we had the Watergate situation and I remember the rhetoric in these halls when the creation of political action committees was hailed as the basic reform that would clean up campaign contributions, because people make contributions to PACs; corporations do not. Individuals make the money available to PACs; corporations do not. Corporate contributions are illegal. These are individual contributions put together by a political action committee and then given in the name of the political action committee from the private funds of private individuals. This was hailed as a reform. This was hailed as the way to clean things up. Because the media doesn't understand that, because the people in the media don't realize that a corporate name attached to a political action committee does not mean these are corporate funds, most of my constituents now think, as the Senator from Vermont has suggested, that this is corporate money. I have to patiently explain to them once again this is not corporate money. I could give you an example from one of my colleagues here. He has in his State a very large processing plant that produces products that are sold under the label of Kraft Foods. He is very popular in the town where this big plant is. Employees in that particular town come to him and say: We would like to make campaign contributions to you; how do we do it? He tells them: One way is you give me the money yourself. Another way is you can direct your contribution to the PAC at the plant that produces Kraft Foods to go to me. So the people who run the PAC at Kraft Foods come to this Senator and say here are the contributions that are directed to come to you and we are happy to transfer them through to you. The media gets hold of it and discovers that Kraft Foods is owned by a tobacco company, and the next thing you know, this Senator is being attacked in the press for taking campaign money from tobacco companies. He says: Wait a minute, these are individual contributions from my constituents funneled through the place where they work that has nothing whatever to do with tobacco. Try explaining that to the New York Times. No, the editorials roll down that he is taking tobacco money, that he is in the pocket of special interests. Finally, the Senator said: I told them don't give me anymore money. It is too much trouble to try to explain the truth in this situation with the overwhelming amount of media publicity about corporations corrupting politicians. I made the comment before and I will make it again: I have discovered in my 14 years here that there is no such thing as repetition in the Senate. You say the same thing over and over again as if it is brandnew. You cannot corrupt the Senator unless the Senator himself is corrupt. And if the Senator himself is corrupt, he or she will find a way around the rules no matter how we write them. I am strongly for this bill. I think the transparency part of it, the disclosure part, is exactly what we need. But after 40 years of being involved with Washington, and living through the Watergate experience, living through the scandals, whether it is Abramoff or Duke Cunningham, or the other Members of the House who went to jail in years gone by, whose names I don't remember but whose circumstances I still recall, or whether it is the Congressman with whom I worked as a lobbyist who went to jail because one of my fellow lobbyists gave him a $100,000 bribe, the fundamental fact remains that you cannot corrupt a Senator or a Congressman unless that Senator or Congressman is himself or herself basically corrupt. We can write all of the rules we want, but if a Member of this body has the instincts of corruption in his soul, he will find a way around the rules. We should not kid ourselves that we are doing something that is going to clean up everything, because if we get a corrupt Member, the corrupt Member will still act in a corrupt way and you will have another Duke Cunningham-type scandal 5 or 10 years from now and, unfortunately, the reaction here is, hey, that proves we need to change the rules. As I have said, this is the only place I know where, when somebody breaks the rules, the first instinct is to change the rules instead of continuing to enforce them, recognizing that even without what we are talking about here, even without the legislation that is proposed, Duke Cunningham is in jail, and recognizing that even without the kinds of strict changes we are talking about, Jack Abramoff is in jail. These were corrupt individuals who found their way around existing legislation, and trying to solve that problem by additional legislation may very well turn out to be an ineffective effort. With that, I see my friend from South Carolina on his feet seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have looked at this amendment, and I have no particular problem with it. I would think we could pass it by voice vote, but as a courtesy to Senator Bond and the Intelligence Committee, we have asked them to confirm that the understanding which the Senator from California has is, indeed, correct. I have no reason to doubt her word on this matter, but the earlier comment to us was we want to be sure that the fix has been made. She assures us it has been. But as a courtesy to them, I have asked my staff to check with them. When that word comes back, which I expect to be positive, I will be willing to move ahead with a voice vote.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have heard from the minority on the Intelligence Committee, and they verify what Senator Feinstein has said; that is, that the corrections which they suggested which she has accepted are, in fact, in the bill. I am prepared to go to a vote on the bill at this point, and I will support it.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up amendments No. 78 and No. 79.

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent these two amendments be laid aside.

Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 81.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am advised----