Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. That is the type of example.

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have been asked by the sponsor of the amendment to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the final pending amendment.

Mr. LOTT. With that, we have finished our amendments on this very important legislation. I believe we are almost ready to hear from the leaders, and then we will be ready to go to final passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the following amendments en bloc and that they be temporarily set aside after they have been called up: amendments Nos. 2980, 2981 and 2893, introduced by Senator Ensign; amendment No. 2961, introduced by Senator Cornyn; amendment No. 3175, introduced by Senator Coburn; amendment No. 2970, introduced by Senator Sununu; and amendments Nos. 2936, 2937, and 2982, these by Senator Inhofe.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to go forward with amendments postcloture. We did get an agreement last night to go to the Feingold amendment. I see the Senator from Wisconsin is on the Senate floor, so I yield to him to call it up at this time. Amendment No. 2954

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have worked in this area to make sure that we did some things that were necessary and realistic. I think we should make it clear about gifts. We do that in this legislation. We can't accept gifts. I am offended at the very idea that some meal is going to cause me to vote one way or the other. But it suits me fine. As I have said on this floor, I would be happy not to ever have to go to another luncheon or dinner. I would just as soon go home and order a Big Mac. But I think this goes a step further which is problematic in a way that I don't believe the American people expect us to do or that we would want to do. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, individuals who lobby on behalf of other entities must register as a lobbyist. In addition, organizations such as corporations, trade associations, or a labor union that employs in-house lobbyists or outside lobbying firms are required to register under the act. However, for purposes of applying the restrictions that are imposed on lobbyists under our gift rule, an organization that employs lobbyists to represent organizations or its members' interests is not considered to be a lobbyist. Thus, for example, the AFL-CIO employs lobbyists. But for purposes of the Senate gift rule, the AFL-CIO can sponsor a congressional factfinding trip whereas if the AFL-CIO employed an outside lobbying firm, the lobbying firm cannot sponsor such a trip. Under the proposed amendment, for the purposes of our new rule banning gifts and meals, the employees of the AFL-CIO would all be considered to be registered lobbyists. Janitors at the AFL-CIO would all be considered registered lobbyists. The janitors at the AFL-CIO headquarters, the secretaries in the organization, all would be deemed to be registered lobbyists. I am the son of a shipyard worker pipefitter union member. How far would this extend? Would you not be able to go to a meal with a supervisor of a pipe department because they have a lobbyist, not to mention the CEO? So this is not just about corporate America. It is also about union member trade associations and other organizations. We are trying to deal with how we relate to lobbyists, but now we are going to extend it way beyond. You will not be able to go to a meal with the chairman of the board of a sardine manufacturing plant. And why not, when you are in your State and you have an opportunity to go meet with workers and sit down with them? Are we going to be able to have a cup of coffee and a donut? I think we are beginning to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. It could go on and on. I am a big fan of Domino's pizza and McDonald's and Big Macs. I love them. They are bad for you, but they are wonderful. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? I assume they do. I don't think I have ever met one. By the way, in the case of McDonald's, there are franchises. They own all the McDonald's in the Mississippi Delta, or they might own 10 or 12. Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend in the Mississippi Delta who owns those 12 McDonald's in the delta? Not only would I miss an opportunity to be with a friend, I would not have an opportunity to understand the challenges and difficulties of running a small business, or running a restaurant in these towns, problems with crime, workers' problems, workers' needs, the lack of insurance for entry-level employees. How are we supposed to know all of this stuff? Like manna from heaven? We have to stay in touch with reality in order to serve here. We have turned ourselves into not citizen legislators but professional Senators in this room divorced of any opportunity to hear what people have to say. It is OK to talk to them so long as we don't have anything to eat. I think we are going a step too far. Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot--not exactly dangerous places--and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists. I honestly cannot believe that we want to pass an amendment that wants to turn every employee not only in corporate America but in management and labor and other associations into registered lobbyists. But I think that is what the effect of this would be. If the Senator wants to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that. I think we would be well advised not to accept this amendment. I reluctantly went along with accepting the amendment earlier about dealing with lobbyists, but that is OK. I am willing to do things that would prohibit improper conduct, or even the appearance of it, but I think this is a leap way too far. I hope we would not accept this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in opposition?

Mr. LOTT. Three minutes. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time, except for the final 15 seconds, to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has all time been yielded back?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and this is after extensive consultation during the noon lunch period by both sides, both committees, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. We would like to get this matter cleared up, and then I will be able to explain where we are and how we can wrap up this important issue, hopefully within the hour. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to raise one point of order against a series of amendments that violate rule XXII.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XXII against amendments Nos. 2936, 2937, 2954, 2965, 2982, 3175, and 2995.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc, with modifications as indicated: amendments Nos. 2930, 2960, 2961, as modified; 2963, 2970, 3181, as modified; and 3182. I further ask unanimous consent that a series of technical amendments that have been cleared on both sides and that are at the desk also be considered en bloc, agreed to, with motions to reconsider on each laid upon the table. I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order other than the pending amendments Nos. 2980, 2981, and 2983. I further ask unanimous consent that following disposition of those amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to clarify where we are, we do have three remaining amendments by Senator Ensign, and there are other Senators who are working on those amendments and discussing them with Senators who have some concerns. Hopefully, we can work out all of them or a couple of them. It may be a few more minutes. When that is done, we will then dispose of those amendments one way or another, and we will be able to go to final passage. I will be glad to yield the floor at this time so Senator Dodd can make some comments, maybe go over some of the items we have in this legislation, and I will join him at some point.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend and respond in the same sense and vein of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. Before I do that, and talk further about our relationship and how the Rules Committee package came together, I would like to call on my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maine, to go over the specifics of what is included in the bill out of her committee work, and with Senator Lieberman. I have never worked with a floor manager who has been more enjoyable than working with the Senator from Maine, her attitude and her help, her tenacity, and also, of course, Senator Dodd. But I thought before I respond further to Senator Dodd, I would like for us to understand the details of what was in the legislation that came out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't want to repeat everything that has been said here because we do have the need to move forward. We have some amendments we need to dispose of, but let me take a minute to comment as to Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins and their leadership and the way we work together. I wish to do that by reminding you a little bit of history. When we started off this year, there were problems that were reflecting on the Congress and the way we do business--the Abramoff matter, as Senator Lieberman has described. There was a feeling that we needed to address some of those concerns. We needed to take a look at our lobbying laws and the rules of the institution. There was a concern about, was this going to be a panic reaction? Was this going to be everybody taking their partisan positions and not ever actually getting anything done, just looking for political advantage? That could have been what happened, but that is not what happened. It started off by strong leadership on both sides of the aisle. Senator Santorum was designated by Majority Leader Frist to pull together a task force to begin working on issues that needed to be addressed, and solutions. Senator Reid stepped right out and started developing a package on the Democratic side. By the way, I think one of the ways we came to the point where we are is that there were some good things in the Reid proposal. When I brought up the chairman's mark in the Rules Committee, several of the pieces of that legislation came from the Reid ideas. Then it continued to move forward with important areas being addressed. I wound up in a meeting that was somewhat of an amazement to me because it was a bipartisan meeting that included Senator Collins, Senator McCain, Senator Santorum, Senator Dodd, Senator Obama, Senator Isakson--a large group from both sides of all different political persuasions working together to see if we couldn't come up with bipartisan legislation. I guess it was about that time when I started talking to Senator Dodd, saying: Can we do this together and make it a truly cooperative thing? He wanted to do that, but both of us had to make sure leaders were OK with that, and they were. They told us: Yes. Do your job and operate the way a committee is supposed to act--hold hearings, have a markup, report a bill, regular order. That is what we did. I am pleased the way this has come about. I could go around and commend everybody who has been involved but that has already been done very legitimately. But this is a case study of an issue that could have blown up. It was very tough. It could have produced nothing but acrimony. That is not what happened, no. It is not a perfect bill. But we have addressed some tough issues. When you start talking about outright ban of gifts, outright ban of meals from lobbyists, taking action with regard to the flights and transparency and disclosure, saying that former Senators cannot come onto the floor of the Senate when we are debating legislation where they are registered lobbyists, and that also applies to former officers of the institution, except for ceremonial events. We also have very tight postemployment restrictions, and we address the question of earmarks. I, for one, think that earmarks--and I don't particularly like that description, but where you have a Senator or a Congressman exercising their right to have language included in a tax bill or in a highway bill or in an appropriations bill for the benefit of some entity that they are familiar with or something in their State, I think we should have that right. I think it is our constitutional right, as a matter of fact, and I will fight for that. I will fight for it even if my colleague from Mississippi were not the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But he worked with us on how we could deal with this issue by making sure that it wasn't just about appropriations. It was about tax bills coming out of the Finance Committee, and authorization bills, too. I must say, while I think the language in this area still is not totally artfully crafted, we made some real progress there. This was a problem that I believe people were concerned about where there was an earmark in a conference that had not been considered by either body and there was no way to get at it--at a particular item--without a point of order, without taking down the whole conference. That doesn't make sense. That is not the way the Byrd point of order works. So we include that here. I think that is where we need to go. We will continue to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, from all persuasions, to make sure that we have thought that through carefully and produced the right result. But we didn't duck the issue. We stepped up and addressed it by bringing people in and talking about the best way to deal with the earmarks issue. But that leads me to the point that there are some amendments pending now and the only three left that do get into this particular area. In the effort to move forward and expedite these issues and come to conclusion, I think now would be the time to move to an amendment that is pending, which I guess would be 2981. I believe Senator Ensign has an amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for purposes of debate only, I said in my comments before the Senator offered his amendment that I realize it is not perfect language. It has been difficult to achieve what we would like to achieve. He worked on it in the Rules Committee. Senator Cochran made some very important points, and we actually made some changes as we went forward. But I think we still have some more work to do to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. I will commit to work with Senator Ensign to try to find language that does what we are trying to do and which has the support of all involved in the discussions this afternoon. I am not sure what the Senator is trying to do is what we want to do. But I also realize that the language, the wording we have in there, the critical word is pretty nebulous. And we will have to work on that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator wishes to proceed with his next amendment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on Wednesday, March 29, at 9:30 a.m., on the impact of the elimination of MTBE.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``U.S.-China Economic Relations Revisited.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a closed briefing on U.S.-India Atomic Energy Cooperation.