David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Again, I think this goes to the heart of the matter. I think this grandfather clause issue goes to the heart of the matter. Are we going to do something that ``doesn't affect anybody,'' that doesn't matter in terms of people here and now and make a big show of it or are we going to make a difference and stop practices that the huge majority of the American people think are a real problem? I hope we are going to do the latter. I hope we are going to be real and substantive and not go through a PR exercise, and I think the American people are watching to find out. I think this, among other votes, will be a clarifying moment. I thank the Senator for her questions and I look forward to continuing the discussion. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to look at that and respond to that suggestion. Certainly, if there is any ambiguity there, and I don't think there is, I will be eager to clarify it and work on it.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, the point is, yes, it is a great vote as long as it doesn't affect anyone here, as long as it doesn't affect anyone in the body now, as long as it doesn't affect any spouse. I disagree. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it is a problem, it is a problem. Having done it in the past doesn't cure the conflict, doesn't cure the problem. I think demanding that a grandfather clause be attached to this is the height of cynicism. We are going to reform things as long as it doesn't affect us. I think that is bad policy and I certainly think it is a very negative message to send to the American people--although it may be a rather clear message about what this debate and exercise is all about. In terms of the question about official contact, I think that is very clear because it is in the context of the lobbyist disclosure law. It is in the context of lobbyist contact. However, if the Senator continues to believe it is not clear and wants to offer any clarifying language, I would look at that and work with the Senator. I will be happy to work on clarifying language. Obviously, no one wants to prohibit spouses from going to the Supreme Court dinner or anything else. I think that is a relatively--I don't think it is a problem. But even if you think it is one, I believe it is an easy problem to solve.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to, after I finish my comment.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for those points and questions. Let me respond to each one. First, I think what you said, literally at the very beginning of your comments, says it all. You said this would be fine if it didn't affect anyone, but it does. This would be window dressing if it didn't affect anyone, if it did not do anything. But, yes, it does. And it should.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I wish to emphasize what I stated to the distinguished Senator from California. I tried to meet every legitimate argument. I bent over backward with regard to that issue. Specifically, I point out that the exception in my amendment that says, quite simply, if the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more prior to the marriage or a year or more prior to the Member's first election to the House or Senate, then that is an exception, and they can continue lobbying. Every other case is a real problem, a real conflict, and specifically I don't think a grandfather clause that protects folks who are doing it now is appropriate. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it poses real ethical questions--that is true whether one has been doing it for 10 years or whether one starts tomorrow--I urge all the Senate to reject that grandfather clause. The message of a grandfather clause is simple: Yes, we are going to get serious about ethics, as long as it doesn't do anything in practice, as long as it doesn't affect our friends. I don't think that is the right policy. I don't think that is the right message. I urge all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this amendment. The American people are watching this debate. They have seen the leadup to this debate. They have seen the scandals. They have seen the rhetoric in the campaigns, and they are wondering: Is this going to be real or is this going to be a farce? We have had some votes, quite frankly, that are leading folks to believe this is a lot of show, a lot of sound and fury with nothing behind it. I hope we can prove those cynics wrong, but I have to admit, I am quickly becoming one of those cynics. I believe this vote is going to say a lot about how serious we are. If there is a vote on the grandfather clause issue, that is going to say a lot about whether we are going to act when it has a consequence in this body or just act when it doesn't affect anybody in this body as it stands now. Madam President, I urge all my colleagues to look at the amendment, support the amendment, certainly resist any grandfather clause which would be horrible policy, and send a very simple message to the American people. I look forward to a fuller debate on the issue and a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. VITTER. No, it is not correct, for the following reason: My amendment, first of all, applies only to Senate spouses lobbying the Senate. It doesn't apply to the House, it doesn't apply to Federal agencies, it doesn't apply to State legislatures. It doesn't apply to all sorts of other things. To be quite honest and direct, I would like to have it apply more broadly to all of Congress, but to make my amendment germane, I have to forgo that. I think that is a direct answer to the Senator's question.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. No, it does not. I appreciate the question. In developing this amendment, we dealt with a lot of different ideas and a lot of different versions. I mistakenly filed a version with the grandfather clause in it. That was never my intent, in terms of filing an amendment in this Congress and in this debate. As soon as I learned that from my staff, I amended the amendment, and so it does not contain that grandfather clause. My thinking is very simple. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it is a problem, it is a problem. And because somebody has been doing it for a few years doesn't right the wrong. I do have an exception, which is different from a grandfather clause. I bent over backward to try to meet every reasonable argument. The exception says: If the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more before the marriage or a year or more before the Member's first election to Congress, that is a bit of a different situation that is allowed. I can make an argument for even doing away with that exception, but I tried to bend over backward for what I considered any legitimate argument.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to take a few minutes to urge my Senate colleagues to carefully study and support my amendment to ban spouses of sitting Members of the Senate from lobbying any Member of the Senate or any Senate staff person. This is a very important debate. It goes to the heart of rebuilding confidence of the American people in our institutions--Senate, House, all of Congress, all of the Federal Government. As we all know, we have seen scandal after scandal over several years, certainly involving both parties, that has, for obvious and good reason, rocked people's confidence. At the heart of almost all of these scandals is a very simple, basic issue and that is public officials using their public position to enrich themselves, to enrich their family, and, of course, the public interest being sold down the road. That is at the heart of this debate, and that concern is at the heart of my amendment. Again, my amendment--we will vote on this later this week--says very simply: No spouse of a sitting Member of the Senate can lobby the Senate, can lobby that Senator, can lobby that Senator's office, can lobby any Senator, can lobby any Senate office, can lobby any Senate committee. Again, I don't think this is a peripheral issue. I think it goes to the heart of the matter: People using public office to enrich themselves, to enrich their families. For the same reason, I thought it was important that we prohibit family members from going on the campaign payroll. Unfortunately, that was voted down. I think this is even more in need of strong action because certainly lobbying connections were at the heart of so many of the scandals that got us to this debate. There are two big problems, two big conflicts we are talking about that this amendment can largely solve. One is for certain lobbyists to have undue influence. That is clearly an issue with regard to lobbying of spouses of sitting Members of the Senate. The underlying bill would prohibit those spouses from lobbying their spouse Member, that office. That is fine. But clearly, any Senate spouse is going to have an enormous advantage in terms of access and influence to other Senators and other Senate offices. Imagine if a spouse lobbyist walks in the door and his or her spouse happens to be the chair of a committee on which the Member she is lobbying sits. That is a pretty significant power relationship right in the midst of that lobbying. Clearly, there is that real danger of undue influence and access. There is a second problem too. In my opinion, the second problem is even bigger than the first, and that is for a special interest, for a monied interest, to have a mechanism to write a big check straight into the family bank account of a sitting Senator, to directly and dramatically increase the income, the personal wealth of a sitting Senator. That absolutely happens whenever you are going to allow spouses of sitting Senators to lobby. Again, that I think is an even bigger issue and certainly has been front and center in terms of a number of problems and scandals that have come up and reported fully in the media in the last couple of years on both sides of the aisle. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that this recent article about the problem, about that very issue in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with regard to a Vitter amendment, amendment No. 9. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It simply raises penalties with regard to lobbyists not following the lobbyist disclosure law. The maximum penalty would be $200,000. No. 1, that is the maximum. No. 2, they have an opportunity to cure the problem, so that would only be achieved in very serious, very egregious cases. No. 3, we raise the penalties on public officials. I think it is very appropriate that we set these new penalties, particularly considering the money made in lobbying. I commend it to your attention. Thank you.

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

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to go to regular order for amendment No. 9 for the exclusive purpose of sending a modification to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I will simply slightly expand my unanimous consent request to ask for up to 5 minutes to speak, and I offer that unanimous consent request. I certainly have no objection to the other business.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. I want to spend a few minutes regarding this general debate to say I hope that we have, in the rest of this debate, an adequate opportunity to debate and address and vote on some of the key issues that are and should be at the center of this discussion. I think there is now a rush to cloture, quite frankly--specifically to cut off the opportunity to vote on some amendments. I hope we do not do that. I commend the majority leader for the suggestion that we are going to have votes on many significant amendments on Tuesday. I ask him that that list be very inclusive, to include all significant amendments in which either side of the aisle is interested. I specifically highlight three. One is the DeMint amendment, and I appreciate the words of the majority leader regarding working with Senator DeMint on that amendment. I fully support that amendment. Much more importantly, that amendment has proved to have majority support on the floor of this body. There was a motion to table, and it lost. So that amendment has majority support, and clearly we need to vote and pass that amendment. It has already been proven that it has majority support. The second amendment I would highlight is a Judd Gregg amendment with regard to spending and earmarks and waste. Again, that is very much at the heart of this discussion. Earmarks--earmark abuse, what that does to spending, how it inflates it--have been part of the abuses, unfortunately, that have come to light in the last several years. So that is absolutely at the heart of this debate. A lot of Members of the Senate are interested in that amendment, so we need a debate and a vote on that amendment. Third, I would highlight my own amendment which I just modified, and that has to do with spouses of Members of the Senate lobbying. Again, this debate, this bill, is about two things: ethics and lobbying. I don't know how you come up with any argument that the issue of spouses lobbying, gaining unusual access, having the opportunity of being a conduit for large amounts of money to be deposited in the family bank account of Members from special interests, isn't at the heart of that debate. That is at the heart of the lobbying issue. That is at the heart of the ethics issue. It is foursquare in the center of this debate, and certainly we need an adequate debate and a vote on that idea. I urge all Senators to support a full and open debate and a full and open airing and voting on important amendments, including but not limited to those three. I very much look forward to that next week. I certainly hope cloture is not invoked in an attempt, as many of us fear, frankly, to cut off certain significant and relevant amendments.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. No, it doesn't. I will tell you exactly what it does. First of all, I appreciate the question. Certainly I am eager to give the Senator and all Members a copy of it, which I will do immediately, and that will be well before any full debate and vote. But let me use the opportunity to explain what the modification does. The modification is very simple. It moves the provision to the Senate rules, and it makes it apply to lobbying Members of the Senate only. I did the modification for one reason and one reason only--not because I think that limitation excluding activity on the House side is better but because it makes it germane to the bill and therefore guarantees me a vote. So, to go to the question, the provision--it is only about lobbying the Senate. But in that context, there is an exclusion if the spouse lobbyist was an active lobbyist a year or more before the marriage or the first election. But there is no grandfathering clause other than that. I hope that answers the question of the Senator.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to consider that idea. I am not going to change my amendment to include that because I think it would lose votes from our amendment and I want first of all to pass my amendment, but I am completely open to that discussion and that idea. Without making a final decision, I am completely open to supporting that on the floor of the Senate if somebody were to bring it forward.