Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the need to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. In the course of those remarks, I described a document signed by all five of Mexico's Presidential candidates in the run-up to this July's Presidential elections in that country, as well as leaders from every major party in Mexico. That document makes clear that leaders on both sides of the border understand that border security is a fundamental necessity. I ask unanimous consent that the document, ``Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Alexander, to introduce a resolution that of the resolution the Senate has passed to proclaim the third week of April of 2006 as Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week. Last year, we passed a similar resolution and continue to support raising awareness of this important issue. I would like to recognize the many groups, particularly the National Shaken Baby Coalition and the SKIPPER Initiative, who support this effort to increase awareness of one of the most devastating forms of child abuse, one that results in the death or lifelong disability of hundreds of children each year. We must recognize child abuse and neglect as the public health problem it is, one that is linked with a host of other problems facing our country and one that needs the comprehensive approach of our entire public health system to solve. The month of April has been designated National Child Abuse Prevention Month as an annual tradition that was initiated in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. In 2006, April is again National Child Abuse Prevention Month. The tragedy of child abuse is well documented. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, almost 900,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in the United States in 2002, causing unspeakable pain and suffering to our most vulnerable citizens. Each day, nearly four of these children die as a result of this abuse. Most experts are certain that cases of child abuse and neglect are in fact underreported. Abusive head trauma, including the trauma known as Shaken Baby Syndrome, is recognized as the leading cause of death of physically abused children, especially young children. Shaken Baby Syndrome is a totally preventable form of child abuse that results from a caregiver losing control and shaking a baby, usually an infant who is less than 1 year old. This severe shaking can kill the baby, or it can cause loss of vision, brain damage, paralysis, and seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and causing untold grief for many families. Too many families have experienced the pain of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that, in the U.S., an average of 300 children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom two-thirds will be babies or infants under 1 year in age, as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Medical professionals believe that thousands more cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome are being misdiagnosed or not detected. Families should be spared the needless tragedy of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Prevention is the most effective solution to ending Shaken Baby Syndrome. It is clear that the minimal costs of educational and prevention programs may help to protect our young children. Families as well as professionals who care for children must be made aware of the injuries that shaking can cause. In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect recommended a universal approach to the prevention of child fatalities that included services such as home visitation by trained professionals or paraprofessionals, hospital- linked outreach to parents of infants and toddlers, community-based programs designed for the specific needs of neighborhoods, and effective public education campaigns. Prevention programs have demonstrated that educating new parents about the danger of shaking young children and how they can help protect their child from injury can bring about a significant reduction in the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. In 1998, Dr. Mark Dias started the Upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo, which uses a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital. Since that time, the number of shaken baby incidents in the Buffalo area has dropped by nearly 50%; none of the perpetrators have been identified as participants in the hospital education program. Hospitals around the country, including several in my own State of Connecticut, have adopted programs similar to these to educate new parents about the dangers of shaking young children. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the third week of April of 2006 as National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week, and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. The prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome is supported by advocacy groups across the U.S. that were formed by parents and relatives of children who have been killed or injured by shaking. I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. The other provision I wish to address in the brief time I have available goes beyond the border security issue that the Specter amendment clearly addresses. Individuals have come to our country looking for work, and we know from surveys that 94 percent of undocumented males in this country are in fact working. These are not unemployed people who are looking for first-time jobs; these are people with jobs who saw a better opportunity in coming across our borders. I know it has been said, but every one of us here can tell family stories going back a generation or more, regardless of where we have come from, on why our forebears came here. Mostly it was for economic reasons, in the past, or political reasons that made it difficult for our forebears to remain in the countries of their birth. I acknowledge that people have come here illegally. That is wrong, and we need to put a stop to it. The Specter amendment also acknowledges that fact. It doesn't give these people a free ride at all. Instead, it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring undocumented workers to pay fines, pay all back taxes, submit themselves to background checks, and learn English. But then it does allow them to move out of that status. That is one of the differences. If we add an additional burden, which our friends from Arizona and Texas are implying here, that if you came in under a legal visa and you have overstayed that visa, then you can never move out of that status again regardless of whether you have complied with these other provisions, it seems to me we are only compounding our problems. Certainly, this legislation also provides an avenue for undocumented workers to come out in the open, to earn legalization. Earning legal status wouldn't be an easy process. An individual who takes advantage of this program would have to work for 6 years before he or she could even receive a green card. At that point, they would be put at the back of the line of some 3.5 million people who are legally seeking entry into the United States as I speak. They would come first. These undocumented workers would come after those people had been approved. It would take a minimum of 5 additional years of steady employment before the individual could finally become an American citizen. That is 11 years. That is certainly not a light process to go through. With a pathway to citizenship--not amnesty at all but an earned pathway--we will provide incentives to undocumented workers to come out of the shadows of society. Why is that important? For many reasons. Because the presence of so many individuals without documentation in our country creates enormous challenges for law enforcement. It undermines worker protections. It is bad for security. It is bad for American workers. It is bad for undocumented immigrants themselves. Moreover, it is impossible to adequately protect U.S. national security if we don't know who is living within our borders. And by bringing undocumented workers into the open, we will help law enforcement professionals and our security services do their jobs: protecting the American people and enforcing our laws--there is no higher priority we have than that. And if we have a process that goes on for 11 years, a pathway, we begin to assist in that effort. As I said, among other provisions, the Specter amendment would double the size of the Border Patrol over 5 years, adding 12,000 new agents to patrol our borders. It would expand the number of interior enforcement officers by 1,000 per year over each of the next 5 years. It would utilize advanced technologies to improve surveillance along the border, creating a virtual fence to detect and apprehend people who are illegally attempting to enter this country. And it would create new and increased penalties for individuals trying to subvert our borders with tunnels or who attempt to smuggle people into the U.S. I support these measures. But they are only one part of the bigger equation. We also have to find a way to deal with the more than 11 million undocumented individuals living within our borders. These are predominantly individuals who have come to the U.S. to make a living, and to support themselves and their families. Ninety-four percent of undocumented men, according to a March 7, 2006, Pew poll, choose to work. These are, for the most part, hardworking individuals, who are not here to flood the welfare rolls or collect our charity. They are here to work and to contribute. They want what all of our families wanted when they came to the U.S.--a piece of the American dream. I acknowledge that they came here illegally and this is wrong. And so does the Specter amendment. It wouldn't give them a free ride. Instead, it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring undocumented workers to pay fines. It would require them to pay all back taxes, submit themselves to background checks, and learn English. But critically, this legislation also provides an avenue for undocumented workers to come out into the open, to earn legalization. Earning legal status wouldn't be an easy process either. An individual who takes advantage of this program would have to work for 6 years before he or she could even receive a green card. At that point, they would be put at the back of the line--behind everyone who has come here legally--and it would take a minimum of 5 additional years of steady employment before the individual could finally become an American citizen. That's 11 years in total. With a pathway to citizenship, not an amnesty but an earned pathway, we will provide incentives to undocumented workers to come out of the shadows of our society. Why is this so important? Because the presence of so many individuals without documentation in our country creates enormous challenges for law enforcement and undermines worker protections. It is bad for our security, bad for the American worker, and bad for undocumented immigrants themselves. Moreover, it is impossible to adequately protect U.S. national security if we don't know who is living within our borders. By bringing undocumented individuals out into the open, we will help law enforcement professionals and our security services do their job: protecting the American people and enforcing our laws. We will also help prevent the type of workplace abuses that are bad for everyone, Americans and immigrants alike. Despite what has been said on this floor, not all people seek to come permanently to the U.S. Many seek temporary work here and desire to return home when that work is complete. There are legitimate concerns that temporary workers might displace American workers who are available and willing to take a job. That should never be the case. Wherever possible, American jobs should be filled first and foremost with American workers. The Specter amendment addresses this reality. It creates a new temporary worker classification to meet the needs of American businesses. It would also strengthen procedures to help ensure that no American workers are displaced when temporary workers are hired. As I have said, the Specter amendment is truly comprehensive legislation. It would be impossible to discuss every provision in the bill at length. So I would just like to comment briefly on a few additional items of interest. First, I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee included provisions of the DREAM Act in its legislation. I've long supported the DREAM Act, which in my view is a common sense measure, allowing undocumented students under the age of 16, who were brought into this country illegally through no fault of their own, a chance to complete higher education. Qualifying students, however, will have had to live in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to the date of enactment of this legislation. If they earn and advanced degree or serve our country in the Armed Forces, they would then be granted permanent status and allowed to petition for citizenship. Every student deserves a chance to learn and to serve a cause greater than themselves. This measure will give many deserving children that opportunity. Finally, I would like to highlight a provision included in the Specter amendment that is receiving somewhat less attention. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I've tried to raise awareness about western hemisphere affairs. Indeed during all my years in this body, I have served as a member of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs--even, for a time, as chairman. One thing I would note about the immigration issue, from a regional perspective, is that many of the problems we are facing--drug trafficking, crime, and insecurity--are also affecting our neighbors in the hemisphere. Just like us, they are struggling to address these seemingly intractable problems every day. That is why I am pleased that in its bill, the Judiciary Committee included measures to help our neighbors. In particular, the Specter amendment would establish programs to help Guatemala and Belize fight human smuggling and gain control of their tenuous borders. It would also encourage strategic coordination across the hemisphere to fight the growing problem of gang violence. In my view, these are critically important provisions, and I hope we can do more to help some of our closest neighbors on these issues. Because in reality, we cannot solve our problems here without also addressing the roots of the problems abroad. Unless we act now to address the enormous challenge posed by illegal immigration, the problem is only going to get worse. The Specter amendment isn't perfect--I think most of my colleagues would agree with that statement--but I do believe it is a critical measure that will help to resolve many of the challenges we face with respect to illegal immigration. I again thank my colleagues for their hard work and leadership on this issue. My hope is that we strike that balance between border security, economic security, national security, and then also designing, as we have with the Specter amendment, a process that will allow for these people to move out of the shadows into the open, and into a legal status. It is a difficult path, a cumbersome path, but a path that will allow them to achieve that status at the end of the road. I urge adoption of the Specter amendment, and I urge that we not table the Kyl amendment at this point, that we need to examine this issue even more carefully. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take the time allocated to me to address the larger issue of this bill; although, clearly, the amendment being offered by our colleagues from Arizona and Texas impacts the larger question: the decision of whether we deal with a part or the whole of the immigration issue. You can make a case, obviously, that by just dealing with border security issues, you are dealing with an important and essential element of immigration reform. I would quickly argue that if you just deal with border security and do not also deal with the phenomena of 11 million people who are here illegally, you would only be addressing half of the issue--a legitimate half of the issue--without any kind of recourse or plan on how you ultimately deal with the fact that we have 11 to 12 million people who are here under an illegal status. So I appreciate the work of my colleague from Arizona, and I would be urging colleagues to vote no on the motion to table because I think we ought to have a bit more time to analyze and discuss exactly what the implications of this amendment are. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. I want to acknowledge the work of those on the Judiciary Committee who have done a fabulous job, in my view, through extensive hearings and a very worthwhile markup session. I watched almost every minute of it. I was deeply impressed with our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, who addressed this issue. Let me be clear from the outset--something we need to say over and over and over and over again--immigration reform is first and foremost about protecting America's national security, our economy, and our citizens from the myriad of challenges we are going to face in the 21st century. We have no higher priority than those: to protect our national security, to protect our borders, and to protect our economy. Therefore, any discussion of immigration reform must begin with an emphatic declaration of our intentions here: to secure our borders; to protect our citizens from a flood of people arriving here, albeit with good motives. But it is unrealistic to assume that any nation in this world can have open borders--unlimited for people who want to come here. So I believe it is extremely important we state that case at the outset. But I also believe that it is an enormously complex and difficult issue. It is that very complexity that leads us to the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. There is a very real temptation to deal only with certain aspects of immigration and to put off the more difficult matters to some future time and date. That is exactly what the other body did back in December when they passed a bill dealing only with the issue of border security and enforcement and neglected entirely dealing with the phenomena of 11 million human beings who reside in this country today without documentation. Which brings me to the legislation currently before the Senate. One version, introduced by our colleague, Senator Frist, mainly addresses border security and enforcement. Certainly, these are critical components of any immigration reform package. No bill should be considered comprehensive without them at all. But Senator Frist's bill does not go nearly far enough toward addressing the other monumental challenges we face on immigration, including the presence of more than 11 million human beings, undocumented, in the United States, who need to be brought out of the shadows and into the open. In my view, turning our backs on this reality is the same thing as turning our backs on providing border security. If we had a bill before us that only dealt with how we handle 11 million people who are here illegally and not border security, that would be a flawed piece of legislation. The fact that you are dealing with just border security is equally flawed. We need to have both parts here if we are going to succeed. Thankfully, of course, Senator Specter has provided us, along with the Judiciary Committee members, with an approach that does address both pieces of this problem. Is it an imperfect bill? Absolutely. Does it need more work? Absolutely. But clearly, it is one that brings the balance of dealing with border security, national security, and economic security, as well as realistically trying to deal with the 11 million undocumented workers who have come to our country. The Specter amendment toughens our borders. We clearly need to do more to control these borders and to prevent individuals from illegally entering our country because, fundamentally, border control is a national security issue. The Specter amendment would provide advanced border security technologies to assist those tasked with protecting these frontiers. The Specter amendment would also improve our ability to enforce immigration laws by making structural reforms and increasing personnel and funding levels where they are needed most. I won't go into all the details here, but 12,000 new agents along that border will clearly help. My good friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and I were privileged to attend a meeting in Mexico a few weeks ago, an interparliamentary meeting that I have attended for 26 years--odd years here, even years in Mexico. We were both deeply impressed with a document prepared by our colleagues in Mexico that has been signed by all five candidates for President of Mexico, which will be holding elections on July 2, as well as the major parties in Mexico. It is a rather short document. I will ask for it to be included in the Record. Senator Cornyn and I actually sent this to each of our colleagues to look at. But our friends from Mexico list national security, border security, as one of the guiding principles in what must be a part of any immigration reform proposal. It is worth reading because these issues are not only our concern but their concern as well. If Mexico is unwilling or incapable of helping us keep our borders secure, then this legislation will not work. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is correct. If she is not a lobbyist and she takes you to lunch and she decides that is how she is paying for it, she is not a registered lobbyist, she is not in violation of the law in the amendment we agreed to.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Obama, of Illinois, I ask that it be in order to call up three amendments, and once the amendments are reported, that they may be set aside.

Mr. DODD. I call up amendments No. 2930, No. 2965, and No. 2995.

Mr. DODD. I call up amendment No. 3181 and amendment No. 3182.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Wisconsin, he and I have worked together on a lot of issues. I consider him one of my best friends in this institution. I appreciate his kind remarks about the adoption of the Dodd-Santorum amendment, about 3 weeks ago now, when our joint amendment provided a total ban on meals coming from lobbyists. I never could keep straight exactly what the numbers were, for example, how much you could take at lunch and how much you could take at dinner. We decided we would require some bright line tests. Rather than going through and setting a dollar amount--people probably forget the number anyway and put themselves in jeopardy of being found guilty of something, unintentionally--we offered and passed a total ban on meals, without exceptions. So meals from lobbyists are now banned when this legislation becomes law. If you violate the ban provision, the fine is a maximum of $100,000 under the legislation we are adopting. The concern I have about my colleague from Wisconsin and his amendment is that it is broader and includes a much larger audience. This bill is about lobbyists. You become a lobbyist through registration under the Lobby Disclosure Act. It is not a self-selecting process where I decide tomorrow I'm a lobbyist. In fact, you have to register and go through a process to become a lobbyist. We have been very concerned for obvious reasons, given the recent past history, of what happens when lobbyists engage in certain activities, some lawful and some unlawful, and the perception of whether Members of this institution have somehow compromised themselves in those dealings. We have been determined to try and draw that bright line. My concern is that we begin to blur that line because now we are going to be declaring de facto--not by law, not because they have registered--that virtually hundreds of thousands of people have become lobbyists. They will have no idea they have become one, but they have become one under this amendment, subjecting themselves, potentially, to a $100,000 fine for purchasing a meal for a Member of Congress. As a practical matter, that is what will happen here. If your organization hires a lobbyist, and most do--I presume even the bank in Mississippi has a lobbyist; today, almost every major institution, financial or otherwise, has someone who is representing their interests--the lobbyists have to register if they come to the Senate and talk to us. Therefore, they become not only de facto, but de jure lobbyist because they have had to register to do so. If you are an employee of that bank, however, and you live next door to someone, you are a longstanding friend, and my colleague from Wisconsin is correct in this regard, if a longstanding friend of my friend from Mississippi took him to lunch, that would be an exception to the rule. However, that longstanding friendship is subject, obviously, to some analysis as to how long the friendship is. That could pose this difficulty. I don't think we want to extend this, in my view, and my colleagues may decide when we vote on this and reach a different conclusion, to dealing with this legislation on lobbyists and their relationship to Members of Congress, by expanding the universal definition of what is a lobbyist, to virtually every other employee of an organization that hires a lobbyist to represent their interest. This type of expansion goes too far and is overly broad. Let me tell you one fact situation that worries me. I had hoped maybe my colleague might provide for some legislative language to close a potential loophole that I think could exist under the present circumstance. That fact situation is the following. The lobbyist invites the secretary to go out to have lunch with a Member of Congress. The secretary picks up the tab. The lobbyist is there. The lobbyist may have provided money to the secretary to provide lunch. Now, that would be an abuse of what Congress intended here because it then would be doing indirectly what cannot be done directly, in a sense, bringing someone who is not a lobbyist to lunch. The lobbyist is at the lunch, they buy the meal, but at least ostensibly the person who actually bought the lunch was not the lobbyist. If there was some situation we could close that loophole, that would be abuse of what we are trying to do. But to extend broadly that every employee of every organization that hires a lobbyist would then become a lobbyist, in effect, for the consideration of this legislation, seems to me to go way beyond what we are intending to accomplish in this legislation. Again, I made the case to my colleagues, reform is not a static event. It is an organic event. It grows over time. What we consider to be reform today or not reform today, may down the road be the case. I have been involved in every virtual effort on reform here for the last 25 years. Twenty-five years ago what was considered appropriate behavior, that no one had difficulty with, today we would consider very inappropriate behavior. And 5 years or 10 years down the road, maybe we will have different standards. As of today, I urge my colleagues, as of today, on this bill, dealing with registered lobbyists, we have banned meals. That is a major step for this institution to take. Cut it out altogether. If you are a registered lobbyist, that is it, no more meals. Let me also say, there is nothing in this legislation which permits any Member of Congress from doing that which they want to do. If a Member of Congress, a Member of this institution does not want to accept a meal from anyone, there is nothing in law which prohibits a Member from doing that. If a Member feels as though somehow it is wrong to be doing it, I strongly suggest that Member not do it. But it seems to me to extend this lobbying bill to people who have no intention of ever being a lobbyist, never see themselves in that regard, have relationships, as my colleague from Mississippi has pointed out in our own States, with delegations, with staff, with others, these have occurred hundreds and hundreds of times when Members are back in their own areas--not longstanding friends, not relatives, people they do not know that well at all but sit down under a variety of different circumstances, including home settings, picnics, barbecues, other things, where you may find yourself in violation of this law. I don't think we want to do that. That goes a step further than what we should be trying to accomplish with this legislation. I don't want to have to say to my constituents, you are potentially guilty of a violation of law, subjected to $100,000 fine if you fall into this category, or to one of our colleagues as well. We have done a good job, in my view, on this meals provision. It is a strong line. It is a bright line. There is no longer any question of whether it is a $10 meal or a $50 meal or a $100 meal; you cannot accept a meal from a lobbyist. That is it. If you do, you are potentially in violation of Federal law, or certainly civil penalties. That is where the bright line, in my view, ought to exist. I have great respect for my colleague from Wisconsin. He has been a champion of reform efforts since the day he arrived. I respect him for it immensely. But in this one, we are taking it a step further than I believe we should go at this juncture. I urge my colleagues to either table this amendment or reject it, depending on what the motion will be when the matter comes for a vote. My respect for him is unlimited. I thank him for his thoughts in this regard but I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Again----

Mr. DODD. Under his amendment, that would be a banned activity. Putting aside whether she showed up with a lobbyist--if she shows up, and you go out and have lunch, and she pays for it with the company credit card--under the amendment before the Senate, that would be a violation. She could be fined $100,000.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Levin of Michigan, I call up amendment No. 2960, and once it is reported, I ask that it be set aside.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I call up amendment No. 2963, and once it is reported, I ask that it be set aside as well.

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Byrd of West Virginia, I ask that it be in order to call up two amendments, and once the amendments are reported, that they be set aside.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield just to make a request.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that an amendment by Senator Baucus of Montana, amendment No. 2954, be called up and that amendment be laid aside as well.

Mr. DODD. How much time remains?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I be informed when I have consumed 10 minutes. I see my friend from Maine is here. She would like 2 or 3 minutes, as well.

Mr. DODD. I would certainly consider it. The point I make, about the goal of this bill--the Senator and I have talked about this at great length--is the bill should be narrowly tailored to registered lobbyists and their relationships to Members of Congress and senior staff. My concern under this bill, is that by expanding that definition of a ``lobbyist'' to include anyone who would use resources that were not their own, we are opening up a universe and making the legislation overly broad. I don't think we want to go that far at this particular juncture. That is my own sense of matters. It turns virtually everyone who works for any of these associations, labor unions, trade association, a small business, a large corporation, into a de-facto lobbyist. I think the opening up of a universe of that size based on whether the lunch was paid for by a company credit card or their personal credit card at that particular time, goes too far.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I cited that example, and I hope I did not invite those out there who may decide to use this as a loophole. If this becomes a problem, we ought to revisit the issue and somehow prohibit it because that is abusing the intent of the legislation. It seems to me to pass legislation which would turn virtually millions of people--when you start talking about the number of people who can be affected by this--into lobbyists, per se, on the abject possibility that someone may abuse this down the road goes to far. It goes further than I would at this juncture. In time, if we see those who have engaged in this abuse have carved another loophole, I am prepared to come back and deal with that fact situation. It is a fact situation that worries me. I say that to my colleagues. I am not unconcerned about it, but I am not so concerned about it at this juncture that I am willing to put everyone else--the millions of others who would not think about that, nor would they do that--in harm's way. That is my concern, putting innocent people, potentially, in harm's way. I do not think our intentions here, as Members, ought to be that. We are dealing with lobbyists. We are dealing with registered lobbyists. They have to go through certain procedures to achieve that status. Once they have achieved that status, there is a concern. We are trying to deal with that problem. Taking people who go way beyond that definition, it seems to me, is a step that at least I do not want to go that far.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, we went through these numbers and procedures rather quickly. I would tell our colleagues that there were some very good ideas in these amendments. This is not a rejection of some of the concepts and ideas but, rather, under cloture we have to stick with the germaneness criteria. If we started making exceptions, then this could have become an endless debate. It was painful in some cases because I substantively agreed with a number of these amendments. But the problem occurs, if we get into that process, we could be here for days trying to resolve these matters. We ended up following the rule saying if an amendment is not germane, it will have to fall. Again I emphasize, this is not an indictment or criticism of the substance of some of these amendments but, rather, under the procedures we are operating, we cannot begin accepting some and rejecting others. I thank my colleagues for offering these amendments. I presume we will see these amendments again under different circumstances where it will be appropriate to consider them. We have no other recourse but to apply rule XXII and ask the amendment be ruled out of order.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I would like to do that while we are awaiting final resolution of these remaining issues which we can, hopefully, conclude in short order and then go to final passage of this bill. I begin by again commending my colleagues from Mississippi and from Maine, Senator Lott and Senator Collins, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and their staffs and our staffs for the tremendous work they have done on a bill going back some weeks now. As my colleagues recall, we began consideration of this matter some weeks ago. We were derailed for reasons that were beyond our control. There were matters that arose of national significance and importance, and Members rightly wanted to consider some of those issues in the midst of this debate. Nonetheless, I believe we put together a good product. It does not include every idea that surfaced during the consideration of these proposals, but I think it is a very solid effort and one in which my colleagues can rightfully claim credit and with some degree of pride for what we have done. I again commend the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for handling a major part of this effort, and again the Rules Committee for coming out with a bill, a unanimous vote out of our committee, with matters we considered and presented to our colleagues for their full consideration. This is not a perfect bill. In my 25 years, I have yet to see one of those. But we have a pretty good one, given the constraints of time and invocation of cloture which left behind some very important amendments, amendments which I would have strongly supported had they been offered. Nonetheless, this is a strong bill. It bans gifts and meals from lobbyists altogether. That is a major step in reform. It requires additional and more frequent disclosure of lobbying activities. It places tight new limitations, including Ethics Committee preapproval, on congressional travel funded by outside sources. It increases the transparency of the earmark process. It toughens the conflict of interest rules for Members. It tightens the revolving door provisions of Senate rules and bans floor privileges for former Members who become lobbyists. Further, it bans inappropriate attempts to influence hiring decisions by lobbying firms, such as the K Street Project. It broadens disclosure requirements for massive grassroots lobbying efforts. It requires that conference reports be available on the Internet before they are considered by the full Senate. And it makes other important changes to strengthen and tighten current lobbying laws. This is no small achievement. Just those provisions alone are included in this bill which we will be voting on in very short order. This bill is the result of the work, as I mentioned earlier, of two separate committees, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Rules Committee of this body. Both of these committees held hearings and markup sessions on those issues within their jurisdiction and reported measures on a bipartisan basis to improve the transparency of our legislative work. I know it doesn't happen with great frequency any longer, but it is how this institution is supposed to operate: have hearings, have markups, try to build bipartisan consensus whenever we can. Unfortunately, that bipartisan process is becoming the exception, not the rule, I say with a great degree of disappointment. It used to be that this was standard operating procedure. I am saddened to say now it has become the exception, as I said, unfortunately, and not the rule. These two bills were joined together in one piece of legislation on the Senate floor. Consideration of this matter has been truly a bipartisan effort. I have been honored to serve as the floor manager, along with the majority floor manager who is here, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, and I commend my colleague for his diligence in bringing this legislation to the floor. He advised me very early in the session that he intended to craft a lobbying reform bill, to have a full and open markup in the Rules Committee, and offer all members of that committee the opportunity to offer amendments. That is what he did, and that is why I think we ended up with as strong a bill as we did. Because we had the opportunity to fully debate and amend the chairman's mark in the committee, we were able to produce an original bipartisan bill that was reported to the Senate unanimously. That beginning boded well for this legislation. I also want to commend, of course, our comanagers of the bill--I have mentioned already Senator Collins of Maine--and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for their very similar bipartisan approaches to this legislation. As I noted earlier, it is unusual to have a bill that is reported from two different committees merge together on a single measure on the Senate floor, but even more unusual, I suspect, is that the bill would be managed by Senate colleagues from the same State, in this case my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I. This may be the first time that has ever happened, I might point out, in this Chamber. I also want to commend our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, for their efforts to accommodate this bill in the very busy Senate schedule and for allowing this measure to remain the pending business, even in the face of other priorities. In particular, I commend Senator Reid for his leadership on lobbying reform and for his efforts in introducing the very first comprehensive lobbying reform measure in this Congress. In large part we are here today because of Senator Reid's early and persistent efforts to respond to this crisis of confidence of the American people following the Jack Abramoff scandal in the House of Representatives, a matter involving the bribery conviction of a Member of that body and the legal proceedings against certain administration officials involving allegations of lobbying- related improprieties. That is why we are here debating this measure, because of that scandal of the illegal activities of a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, that rocked the House of Representatives. The serious allegations have led to guilty pleas by former Members and their staffs, and the activities of Abramoff and his cronies, wherein they violated current lobbying gift and ethics rules, creating a climate of disillusionment, unfortunately, and distrust of the United States Congress. I suspect we have not seen the end of the indictments, nor the full breadth of this scandal, unfortunately. But to the credit of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, the United States Senate has acted not in haste but in a measured response to this scandal. Our goal is to ensure the confidence of the American people in their system of representative government by ensuring that special interests cannot operate under a cloak of darkness. This bill, with its extended disclosure requirements of lobbying activities and its restrictions on the type of influence lobbyists can exert over Members of Congress through lobbying gifts, I think, can go a long way toward restoring the confidence of ordinary Americans in their Government. We must now get this bill married to the House bill and get it enacted into law, and that will be a task, given the shortened calendar of this election year. But we cannot neglect this final chapter in our effort to bring real reform to Washington. Lobbying reforms are important and certainly will change how business is done in our Nation's Capital. But these changes alone will not address what I have consistently stated is the core problem, the one that still hangs out there, and that is the need for true, meaningful campaign finance reform that breaks the link between the legislative favor seekers and the free flow of special interest private money. That would be a much more significant reform, in my view, than all of the reforms that we have accomplished with this legislation, as important as they are. I am grateful to my colleagues for heeding the concerns that we not mix lobbying reform and campaign finance reform in one measure, and I remain committed to seeing that this body addresses real campaign finance reform. But I am equally committed to seeing that we do not do so on this important piece of legislation. We are all aware that the House leadership has included major campaign finance measures in its lobbying reform bill. I am very grateful to our colleagues in seeing to it that our efforts down the road will exclude those kinds of provisions in the final product. In the meantime, I welcome the opportunity to have as complete a debate on campaign finance reform issues as we have had on lobbying reform. Chairman Lott, my good friend, has indicated his willingness to hold a hearing on this issue in the Rules Committee. I would like to go further than that and hear him commit to a markup on the bill. He has not gone that far yet, but he has committed to a hearing. I will take victories as I can get them. If I can get a hearing, I will take the hearing, and then I will be lobbying him, without buying him a lunch, to see if we can't get a markup of a good campaign finance reform bill. But for now, we should commit ourselves to moving forward to conference with the House. I urge the House to move forward as well on this important lobbying reform bill. If the introduced version is any indication, as it appears, the House-passed bill will be substantially weaker than the job we have completed here--in a number of key respects. We must hold fast to our stronger provisions whenever possible as we move forward. The American people are looking forward to us putting our house in order and ensuring that lobbying scandals of the House are not repeated anymore in this Chamber. So, again, I commend my colleagues for their tremendous work on this bill. It is a good bill. It is one we can be proud of, and I look forward to its adoption and moving to conference with the House of Representatives. The bill before us has been improved by the amendments offered and debated here in the Senate. There is no reason to believe that we cannot continue to build on these provisions in conference with the House. Although the Majority in the House only recently introduced their lobbying reform measure, I encourage the Leadership to move the measure expeditiously so that we can complete a conference on this measure before Congress gets bogged down in the fall campaigns. I commend my colleagues, Senator Lott and Senator Collins, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for their leadership in bringing this bill to this point. I also want to thank the capable staff of the Senate Rules Committee, Majority counsel Alexander Polinsky and staff director Susan Wells, for their many courtesies and assistance both during mark-up of this measure in Committee and during the floor debate. I also want to thank the staff of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for their efforts to successfully merge these two bills and jointly support the managers. In particular, I want to thank the Majority staff director and chief counsel, Michael Bopp, and Senator Lieberman's Democratic staff, in particular his staff director and counsel, Joyce Rechtschaffen, chief counsel Laurie Rubenstein, and counsel Troy Cribb. I also want to thank my very capable staff, including my committee staff director and chief counsel, Kennie Gill; our elections counsel, Veronica Gillespie, and Democratic staff members Candace Chin, Joe Hepp, Colin McGinnis, and Carole Blessington. And of course, no legislative effort of this magnitude could be accomplished without the assistance of our floor staff. Marty Paone and David Schiappa are invaluable in their efforts to structure our unanimous consent requests to accommodate our colleagues and the Senate schedule. Lula Davis and our cloakroom staff as well as our leadership staff are indispensable to us in our roles as floor managers. I say to all of these staff, and the many hundreds of others who work night and day to bring good legislative ideas to fruition and work to manage the Senate floor and its proceedings, job well done. This is legislation that will truly make a difference in how the American people view their government and will hopefully help to reconnect us to the people we serve. I appreciate the cooperation of our colleagues and look forward to working with them as we move this bill to conference with the House. I yield the floor.