Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am advised there was a drafting error in this amendment and we cannot modify it, because cloture has been filed, except by unanimous consent. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify the amendment by adding the word ``or'' at the appropriate place.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for her courtesy, and send a copy of the modified amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Illinois has an action he wishes to take. I yield to him at this point.

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

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, but there is a Senator who wants to check in on this amendment, and so I am protecting his rights. I ask that we voice vote this amendment after the next vote.

Mr. BENNETT. I do not object, but there is a Senator who wants to take a look at this amendment and has asked that I preserve his rights.

Mr. BENNETT. It is the pending amendment after this amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a little bit longer than the Senator from Illinois but long enough to discover that the Senate and its rules are superbly constructed to deal with the problems of the 19th century. I think perhaps we should recognize that we have moved beyond the 19th century into the 21st. I cannot speak for any member of my caucus, but I will be happy to support this particular rule change. I think of all of the things that have been proposed, this is perhaps the most benign. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to clarify that the time Senator DeMint has utilized would be counted against the 45 minutes under his control.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 13

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, if I could be recognized to take care of a few housekeeping details, we would then listen to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up amendments Nos. 19, 28, and 29 en bloc.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. BENNETT. Senator McCain will have appropriate comments to make on these amendments at some future time. Amendment No. 25, as Modified Madam President, I, also, ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 25, offered by Senator Ensign, be modified in the form I send to the desk.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was not sure this would come up. I know it has been an issue that has been discussed. But in view of the vote on this issue when we dealt with S. 1 in the previous Congress, I thought perhaps it would not come up. Because in the previous Congress, this was defeated 67 to 30. While we have had some turnover in the Senate, we haven't had a sufficient turnover to obviate 67 votes. Even if every new Senator who has come would vote with the 30, that would probably take them to 40 and is still not enough to pass. We had a vigorous debate about this in the previous Congress. I don't need to rehearse too many of the issues that were discussed. Just for the record, the Senate does have a record of dealing with its own Members. Under the Constitution, it is the Senate that is charged with punishing its Members for misconduct. And the Senate has done that historically and sometimes courageously. Interestingly enough, the majority has dealt with Members of the majority. Senator Packwood, who was a valued Member of this body, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the most prestigious positions a Senator can hold, the master of his craft--I don't know of many Senators who knew the finances of this country any better than Senator Packwood--engaged in activity which the Ethics Committee unanimously decided was inappropriate. Our current Republican leader, Senator McConnell, was at the time the chairman of the Ethics Committee and recognized that the removal of Senator Packwood would undoubtedly, as it did, result in the shift of a seat from the Republican side to the Democratic side. I don't think you will find any more loyal partisan to the Republicans than Senator McConnell. In that position, with existing procedures, not requiring any office of public integrity, Senator McConnell, as chairman of the Ethics Committee, led a unanimous vote out of the Ethics Committee against the interests of Senator Packwood, and Senator Packwood resigned. He was, indeed, replaced by Senator Wyden, a Democrat. The Republicans had a seat which they lost and have never gotten back. On the other side of the aisle, Senator Torricelli was dealt with by the Ethics Committee in a manner that caused him to resign his nomination and, therefore, any hope he may have had of reelection. We have a history in this body of dealing with our Members who act inappropriately with the existing procedures. S. 1 is all about transparency. Most of the debate has been about transparency, getting more information out. The more information we get out, the better prepared we are within our existing procedures to deal with those of our Members who may or may not act as they should. For all of those reasons, the Senate, by a vote of 67 to 30, said: We are capable under the present circumstances, under the present rules, under the present structure, to deal effectively with those Members who act inappropriately. I would expect the vote would be very close to the same this time. There is much more that can be said and that has been said. But given the history of this, that is probably a sufficient statement on my part. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairwoman for her consideration of this. As I pointed out in my opening statement when we got to consideration of this bill, virtually every American has an association with an entity that employs a lobbyist. If you go to the rotary club, there is a lobbyist for the rotary club here in Washington. If you go to the Girl Scouts, the Girl Scouts have a lobbyist in Washington. If you go to the PTA, they have a lobbyist here in Washington. A bill that says you can't accept anything from any institution or corporation or organization that has a lobbyist means that if the Girl Scouts come by and give you some cookies and you eat those cookies in the presence of the Girl Scouts who are there, you have violated the law. You have taken something, taken a gift from someone who is connected to an organization that employs a lobbyist. And the chairman heard what I had to say on this. We worked on it together. We have been working on it for the past couple of days and came up with a commonsense solution that removes the concern about this situation. I salute her and thank her for the way in which she has worked with me. We have something on which we both agree. We understand it is fairly widely accepted throughout the body. I am more than happy to act as a cosponsor to this amendment and hope the Senate will adopt it.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 20 be called up and that it be set aside.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Would the Senator from Vermont yield for some questions?