A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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.

How much time remains?

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. 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.

I am happy to yield.

Again----

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

The Parliamentarian may have suggested something other than, but for the purpose of the legislative intent--and sometimes debate can be enlightening--legislative intent, as far as this Senator is concerned, is exactly as the Senator from Nevada described and the Senator from Arizona described, if there is a matter which is neither in the House bill nor the Senate bill, and if it ends up in conference, that matter is subject to a point of order--and for the very reasons which my colleague described.

I do not know how that is confusing language. If it is, I am certainly committed to trying to straighten it out. I believe that is the appropriate way to go.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began in the summer of 2002 when I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential Commission charged with examining the problems the Postal Service faces, and developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that Congress and the Postal Service could implement.

I originally introduced the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act last

May. In June of 2004, the bill was unanimously reported out of the the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That bill, S. 2468, had the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small businesses, and other users of the mail. It also had the strong bi-partisan support of twenty-two members of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, my efforts to have the bill considered before the full Senate were stalled.

Since last Fall, Administration representatives have become actively engaged in postal reform efforts, and have given me their commitment to working with Congress to ensure passage of a reform bill this year. I have every expectation that this will be the year comprehensive postal reform legislation is signed into law.

It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $1.8 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, $7.6 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $47 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High- Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume.

In December of 2003, President Bush announced the creation of a bipartisan commission charged with identifying the operational, structural, and financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. The President charged this commission with examining all significant aspects of the Postal Service with the goal of recommending legislative and administrative reforms to ensure its long-term viability.

The President's Commission conducted seven public hearings across the country at which they heard from numerous witnesses. On July 31, 2003, the Commission released its final report, making 35 legislative and administrative recommendations for the reform of the Postal Service.

As I read through the Commission's report, I was struck by what I considered the Commission's wake up call to Congress: its statement that ``an incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too late given the enterprise's bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First- Class mail volumes and the limited potential of its legacy postal network that was built for a bygone era.'' That is a very strong statement, and one that challenged both the Postal Service and Congress to embrace far-reaching reforms.

To the relief of many, including myself, the Commission did not recommend privatization of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission sought to find a way for the Postal Service to do, as Co-Chair Jim Johnson described to me, ``an overwhelmingly better job under the same general structure.''

The Postal Service plays a vital role in our economy. The Service itself employs more than 750,000 career employees. Less well known is the fact that it is also the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ.

One of the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in mail volume as business communications, bills and payments move more and more to the Internet. The Postal Service has experienced declining volumes of First-Class mail for three straight years. This is highly significant, given that First-Class mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume, and the revenue it generates pays for more than two- thirds of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

The Postal Service also faces the difficult task of trying to cut costs from its nationwide infrastructure and transportation network. These costs are difficult to cut. Even though volumes may be decreasing, carriers must still deliver six days a week to more than 139 million addresses.

As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with the House, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's Commission. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today reflects what the Committee learned from dozens of witnesses.

First and foremost, the Collins-Carper bill preserves the basic features of universal service--affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. As a Senator representing a large, rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents living in the northern woods, or on the islands, or in our many rural small towns have the same access to postal services as the people of our cities. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. Most commercial enterprises would find it uneconomical, if not impossible, to deliver mail and packages to rural Americans at rates charged by the Postal Service.

The Collins-Carper bill allows the Postal Service to maintain its current mail monopoly, and retain its sole access to customer mailboxes. It grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. As a safeguard, our bill establishes a 30 day prior review period during which the proposed rate changes shall be reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as First-Class Mail, periodicals and library mail. This would allow the Postal Service to react more quickly to changes in the mailing industry. The rate caps would be linked to the Consumer Price Index. The goal would be to make rate increases more predictable and less frequent and to provide incentives for the Postal Service to operate efficiently. Price changes for market-dominant products would be subject to a 45 day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Our bill would introduce new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. Subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products would be expressly forbidden, and an equitable allocation of institutional costs to competitive products would be required.

The President's Commission recommended that the regulator be granted the authority to make changes to the Postal Service's universal service obligation and monopoly. The vast majority of the postal community, however, shared my belief that these are important policy determinations that should be retained by Congress. The Collins-Carper bill keeps those public policy decisions in congressional hands.

The existing Postal Rate Commission would be transformed into the Postal Regulatory Commission with greatly enhanced authority. Under current law, the Rate Commission has very narrow authority. We wanted to ensure that the Postal Service management has both greater latitude and stronger oversight. Among other things, the Postal Regulatory Commission will have the authority to regulate rates for non- competitive products and services; ensure financial transparency; establish limits on the accumulation of retained earnings by the Postal Service; obtain information from the Postal Service, if need be, through the use of new subpoena power; and review and act on complaints filed by those who believe the Postal Service has exceeded its authority. Members of the Postal

Regulatory Board will be selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated experience and professional standing. Senate confirmation of all Board Members will be required.

To meet the Presidential Commission's call for increased financial transparency, the Collins-Carper bill will require the Postal Service to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission certain Securities and Exchange Commission financial disclosure forms, along with detailed annual reports on the status of the Postal Service's pension and postretirement health obligations.

The Governmental Affairs Committee dedicated two hearings to the examination of the Commission's workforce-related recommendations. The Postal Service is a highly labor intensive organization, using $3 out of every $4 to pay the wages and benefits of its employees. Their workforce is comprised of more than 700,000 dedicated letter carriers, clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, and others, many of whom place great value on their right to collectively bargain. Our bill reaffirms that right. This bill only makes changes to the bargaining process that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. We replace the rarely used fact-finding process with mediation, and shorten statutory deadlines for certain phases of the bargaining process.

Additionally, the Collins-Carper bill corrects what I believe to be an anomaly in the federal workers' compensation law that results in high costs for the Postal Service. Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), federal employees with dependents are eligible for 75 percent of their take-home pay, tax free, plus cost of living allowances. In addition, there is no maximum dollar cap on FECA payments. As a result, employees often opt not to retire, staying on the more generous workers' compensation program permanently.

According to a March 2003 audit issued by the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service's workers' compensation rolls include 81 cases that originated 40 to 50 years ago, with the oldest recipient being 102 years old. The IG's office found 778 cases that originated 30 to 40 years ago; and 1,189 cases that originated 20 to 29 years ago.

The Collins-Carper bill works to protect the financial resources of the Postal Service by converting workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age. This change would reflect the fact that disabled postal employees would likely retire at some point were they not receiving workers' compensation. I would like to note that the average postal employee retires far earlier than age 65, so this is still a generous program. It is important to point out that the Postal Service has reduced their workplace injury rate by twenty-eight percent over the past three years.

The Collins--Carper bill also puts into place a three-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. This is consistent with every state's workers' compensation program that requires a three- to seven-day waiting period before benefits are paid.

To address the President's Commission's recommendation for improved executive compensation, this bill will allow the Postal Service to raise their overall executive compensation level from Executive Level 1 to that of the Vice President. This would bring the Postal Service in line with authority granted to federal agencies. This new authority will be contingent upon the development of a meaningful performance appraisal system.

Our bill has reached an important compromise on the issue of workshare discounts. The workshare program was developed by the Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission to enable customers to pay lower rates when they perform mail preparation or transportation activities. The language in our bill supports the principle that workshare discounts should generally not exceed the costs that the Postal Service avoids as a result of the worksharing activity. However, the bill spells out certain circumstances under which workshare discounts in excess of avoided costs are warranted.

Finally, our bill would repeal a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account. Repealing this provision would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but also to mitigate rate increases as well. In fact, failure to release these escrow funds could mean, for mailers, a double-digit rate increase in 2006--an expense most American businesses and many consumers are ill-equipped to afford.

The bill would also return to the Department of Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees. No other agency is required to make this payment. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for this $27 billion obligation.

The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate, and House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis, who, together with Congressman John McHugh, also recently introduced a postal reform bill, H.R. 22.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century. I originally introduced this bill last May. In June of 2004, the bill was unanimously reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That bill, S. 2468,

had the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small business, and other users of the mail. It also had the strong bi-partisan support of twenty-two members of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, the 108th Congress expired before my bill passed the Senate.

It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has roughly $70 billion to $80 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $1.8 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, $7.6 billion for workers' compensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $47 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High-Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume.

The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, and paper manufacturing. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ.

First and foremost, my bill preserves the basic features of universal service--affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized.

This postal reform legislation grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as first-class mail, periodicals, and library mail. The bill also introduces new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act will greatly improve the financial transparency of the Postal Service. The USPS would be required to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission certain Securities and Exchange Commission financial disclosure forms, along with detailed annual reports on the status of the Postal Service's pension and postretirement health obligations in order to ensure increased financial transparency.

The legislation repeals a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account, which would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but also to mitigate rate increases. It also returns to the Department of the Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees--a responsibility that the Treasury Department bears for all executive branch departments and agencies.

The bill also converts workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age, and puts into place a 3-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. These changes will save the Postal Service approximately $50 million in workers' compensation costs over a 10-year period.

The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now.

I therefore ask the Senior Senator from New Hampshire and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee whether I can count on his assistance and support to help pass this legislation this Congress.

I thank my friend from New Hampshire and look forward to working with him on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first of all, I commend my friend from Connecticut and also the Senator from Pennsylvania for their amendment on meals that was offered before the recess, and also the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for accepting it. If we are going to have a lobbyist gift ban, it clearly has to include meals. The provision in the underlying bill that allowed for Senators and staff to continue dining at the expense of lobbyists as long as those meals are disclosed on the Senator's Web site would have been an administrative nightmare and also created a subculture of lawbreaking just as, unfortunately, the $50 limit has done.

The way we avoid that is just to ban meals from lobbyists, as we have banned gifts in the underlying bill.

I am obviously not going to stand here and say that any Senator's vote can be purchased for a free meal or a ticket to a football game. But I do not think anyone can say that all lobbyists are buying these meals out of the goodness of their heart. At this point, no reform bill is going to be credible that does not contain a strict lobbyist gift ban. And no one has ever explained to me why Members of Congress need to be allowed to accept free meals, tickets, or any other gift from a lobbyist. If you really want to have dinner with a lobbyist, no one is saying that you cannot. Just take out your wallet and pay your own way. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that you will survive just fine under a no-gifts policy. The Wisconsin Legislature has had such a policy for some 30 years and I brought it here with me to Washington. And I certainly have not gone hungry.

We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. It is not necessary. It looks bad. It leads to abuses. So I support the Dodd-

Santorum amendment on meals and I am glad that it was adopted.

Here is the problem that I seek to address in my amendment. We have just said that we want to ban all gifts from lobbyists--tickets, meals, presents, everything. But it is a little known fact that the Ethics Committee already has in place an interpretation of the term ``registered lobbyist'' that narrows it somewhat. That interpretation might make some sense for the prohibitions on lobbyists that are currently in our rules. But that same interpretation, if it is applied to this gifts and meals ban, will create a huge loophole.

Here is how it works. As my colleagues know, the Lobbying Disclosure Act requires organizations, trade associations, and companies that employ in-house lobbyists to file a single registration. The registrant is the organization, and it lists its individual lobbyists on its registration form. For purposes of the gift rules now, the Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization. If you do not believe me, look on page 43 of the Ethics Manual. Here is the language:

For purposes of applying the special restrictions on

lobbyists in the Gifts Rule, an organization employing

lobbyists (outside or in-house) to represent solely the

interests of the organization or its members will not be

considered to be a ``lobbyist.''

If that interpretation is applied to the gift and meals ban, that means that the organization can continue to offer gifts and meals to Senators and staff.

So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call or the organization's CEO president, that would be permitted, or a lobbyist can invite a Senator or staffer to dinner, as long as he brings along someone else from the organization to pick up the tab with the company credit card.

Let me read some of the companies and organizations that have registered under the LDA because they have in-house lobbyists. All of the organizations I am about to list, and hundreds more, will be able to continue to give gifts unless my amendment is adopted: Chamber of Commerce for the U.S.A.; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; General Electric Co.; American Medical Association; Northrop Grumman Corp.; Edison Electric Institute; AFL-CIO; Verizon Communications Inc.; Business Roundtable; Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America; National Association of Realtors; ExxonMobil Corp.; SBC Communications Inc.; Boeing Co.; Lockheed Martin; AT&T Corp.; General Motors Corp.; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); Sprint Corp.; Microsoft Corp; American Council of Life Insurance; Pfizer Inc.; National Association of Broadcasters; Citigroup; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Securities Industry Association; American Bankers Association; The Seniors Coalition; Ford Motor Co.; Merck & Co.; American Bankers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; IBM Corp.; National Cable and Telecommunications; Association and state affiliates; Eli Lilly and Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco; American International Group Inc.; General Dynamics Corp.; Motorola Inc.; Southern Co.; BellSouth Corp.; ChevronTexaco; Investment Company Institute; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Textron Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; United States Telecom Association; Intel Corp.; National Association of Manufacturers; Health Insurance Association of America; Time Warner; Marathon Oil Corp.; American Association of Health Plans; Abbott Laboratories; Union Pacific Corp.; American Chemistry Council; BP Amoco; Shell Oil Co.; United Technologies Corp.; Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; Honeywell, Inc.; Qwest Communications International Inc.; Property Casualty Insurers Association of America; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Wyeth; Walt Disney Co.; Biotechnology Industry Organization; Prudential Financial Cos.; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Monsanto Co.; CTIA--The Wireless AssociationTM (formerly the Cellular Telecom Industry Association); The Bond Market Association; Asbestos Study Group; Johnson & Johnson, Inc.; Schering-Plough Corp.; Procter & Gamble Co.; American Forest & Paper Association; National Federation of Independent Business; American Institute of CPAs; Raytheon Co.; Visa USA Inc.; American Airlines; and International Paper Co.

These are all companies that have registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act because they have inhouse lobbyists. So let me repeat. All of the organizations I just listed, and hundreds more, will be able to continue to give gifts, tickets, and meals unless my amendment is adopted. By the way, each of the organizations I just listed has reported spending between $15 and $200 million on lobbying activities between 1998 and 2004. So let me make this very clear. If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, ``we just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

We ought to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. But we need to make sure it's a real ban. My amendment will do that. It simply says that for purposes of the gift ban only, the term ``registered lobbyist'' means any person or entity who is registered under the LDA and any employee of that entity. Very simple, and very fair.

Now let me point out one other thing before people get all worried. All of the exceptions in the current gift rule continue to apply to the meals and gift ban. That means it does not impact our colleagues, relatives, personal friendship, widely attended events, food and drink of nominal value, etc. So that means that employees of these organizations can still have their friends who work on the Hill over for dinner, they can still go out on dates, they can still exchange Christmas gifts, they can still get a housewarming gift from a neighbor. Organizations can still host receptions and Members and staff can attend and have a bit to eat. My amendment simply makes sure that organizations that are registered under the LDA can't get around the gift ban by having people other than their lobbyists offer tickets or meals or other gifts.

I say this with great respect for the Senators who have worked so hard in putting this bill together.

If we are serious about changing the rule on gifts and meals, we have to take the interpretation seriously. My amendment makes it clear that we mean what we say. The era of the free lunch will be over. For real. As it should be. If it is not adopted, there is no conclusion to be drawn but that we are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. I don't want that to be the story coming out of this debate. I hope the managers will accept this amendment and, if not, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi. This reminds me of the experience in 1994 when there was stiff resistance to the idea of having a gift ban in the Senate. We achieved a significant victory by having at least a $50 limit which has been, unfortunately, abused to this day.

I would like, at this time, to get this done in a way that does not cause us to have to come back. The point I make to my friend from Mississippi is that this is a real loophole. I am not trying to find some esoterical problem. It is a real loophole if employees of large companies, where the companies are registered as lobbyists, if they are able to buy meals. It undercuts the whole idea that we are prohibiting meals by lobbyists and their employees.

I make two responses. First, this does not apply to companies that are not registered as lobbyists. For example, if the Senator from Mississippi were to have lunch with, say, a banker in Jackson, MS, whose company bank does not have a lobbyist, this does not affect that situation. Let's not exaggerate how far it goes.

What is more important, I don't understand the premise. The Senator said he would not be able to have lunch or have dinner with a CEO. Why not? All you have to do is split the bill. It is that simple. Maybe it is a different cultural tradition, but in Wisconsin if you go to lunch with someone, or dinner, more times than not, you split the bill. It seems to me that Senators know how to do that. It is not about the person trying to buy you a meal. It is just a good thing for us to do.

Whether this is practical or impractical, I say this again, we have had this rule in Wisconsin for over 30 years for our State legislature. It has worked just fine. Sometimes we kid around about it, the cup of coffee situation, but it is a good, clean rule. And people understand, when you are a legislator in Wisconsin, you pay your own way. That is all there is to it. It is that simple.

I don't want to prohibit the Senator from Mississippi or anyone else from socializing with whomever he wants, and I certainly enjoy sharing dinner with friends. Sometimes, they are lobbyists. There is no problem, though, with paying your own way.

If we don't do this, if we do not adopt this amendment, we are stuck with a big loophole. I think the fears about this being difficult to administer are exaggerated.

I retain the balance of my time.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I express my gratitude not only for the Senator's kind remarks to the Senator from Connecticut but I am pretty sure the McCain-Feingold effort that we fought for, for 8 years, would not have succeeded if not for the brilliant leadership of the Senator as manager on the floor, for which I am always grateful and also for his friendship.

I pursue the example that the Senator raised in a constructive way. In the scenario the Senator raised where the secretary would come with lobbyists, what is the Senator's thought about how she would be paying for that? Would she be paying for that with the company credit card, for example?

Or with a personal?

And does the Senator agree, under your current amendment, that the secretary would be able to use the company credit card to pay for it under the amendment we have agreed to?

On this point--obviously, it may not be a secretary or a CEO of a company; it could be some other employee--would the Senator at least consider whether we should take the step of prohibiting the use of company resources or company credit cards? In other words, I think it should be broader. You have raised some concerns about that. What about allowing personal resources to be used but not company resources?

I think the Senator sees where I am going with this. I think the Ethics Committee and others will have to be very reasonable interpreters.

I will have him respond on my time.

The situation is that you are raising situations with personal friends, and in those situations I don't disagree, I don't think there would be a problem. I think the exception would be properly interpreted.

I am asking the Senator to at least perhaps consider whether we really want the kind of scenario that the Senator posits, where a company basically lines up people to come in and act as the person that uses the company credit card. It seems to me we have an opportunity to fix something here, not go as far as I want to go but at least prevent the use of company resources and at the same time avoid the possibility of the true personal friendship situation from being affected.

Mr. President, obviously, not only do I respect what the Senator from Connecticut is doing, but I know his intentions are absolutely to have the strongest possible bill we can have.

What I am trying to do, as strongly as I feel about this issue-- because, again, Wisconsin has had this system, and it has worked just fine. So based on my own personal experience, this is not some kind of a crazy system. Nonetheless, what I am trying to get at is a way that we could have a rule, that even if somebody is technically considered a lobbyist--or we could do it some other way--they just could not use company resources to purchase the meal. That seems to me to be a very reasonable step.

When somebody goes out to lunch or dinner with somebody, it is one thing if they buy a friend or even someone they just met a meal, it is another thing when they are using that company credit card. So obviously I am interested in the amendment I have offered, but I would ask the Senator to think about whether what I am saying is an attempt to come to some kind of a reasonable agreement that actually addresses the hypothetical that he has raised.

Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

I do not know if I will use the whole time.

Mr. President, I have such regard for the Senator from Maine that I would consider an exception for any lobster in Maine because she and I have shared lobster in Maine, and that is a very special thing I think everyone would accept.

My admiration for this Senator from Maine on these issues is truly boundless. She is the one who, somehow, we convinced to join us very early on McCain-Feingold. And just like I said about Senator Dodd, if not for Senator Collins, there is no way this major reform would have ever passed. So I am talking to some of the people who truly

have been reformers in Congress over the years, some of them much longer than I have been. And I say all of this with respect.

Let me say this. We know, because some of us have been working on this for some time, that these opportunities for reform do not come up every year. They tend to come up when something bad happens, whether it be the concerns about the 1996 campaign finance violations or the Abramoff scandal. It is not like we are going to have a chance to do this next year because that is not the way this place works. And, frankly, there are weightier matters that face this country.

But I am warning my colleagues, this is a chance to not have another embarrassing loophole. If we do not do what I am suggesting here, we are going to be embarrassed. There are going to be meals arranged--not the kind of scenario Senator Dodd suggested: an innocent situation but a gaming of this meal ban to allow expensive meals to be bought by people who work for some of the companies I have listed.

I do not think people are going to feel good about that. I think it could raise some of the very things we talked about in terms of the whole Abramoff scandal that led to this. I think we are missing an important opportunity to make sure this bill passes the test with the American people. So again, with respect, I offer this amendment to make sure this amendment works.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Delaware for his support and his ideas on this issue because he obviously knows what he is talking about, having been a Member of this body for a very long time.

I think, obviously, I will try to find some other way to do this. But he has stated the key point. This is not hard to do. This is what we have done in Wisconsin for decades. It is very simple to pay your own way. I do not know what it is, but I cannot understand what the problem is with having that kind of a clear prohibition. I think we will all be better off.

Mr. President, has the other side yielded their time? Has their time expired?

Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. President, when Jack Abramoff pled guilty in January, it was clear that the Senate would have to address lobbying and ethics reform this year. For a short time, it seemed like significant reforms had become possible. While this bill contains many positive provisions, it falls too far short of what I hoped could be achieved for me to support it. So I will vote no.

Ethics reform is not something that happens around here every year. Unfortunately, it takes a perfect storm to get Congress to address these difficult issues. We had that perfect storm this year with the Jack Abramoff scandal, which exposed the seamy side of relations between lobbyists and Members of Congress. We had a chance to take decisive action and really change the way things work in Washington. Unfortunately, we have missed that chance.

We had the chance to give the American people what they want and deserve--a strong brew of tough lobbying and ethics reforms. Instead, all we gave them is weak tea.

The lobbying and ethics reform bill before us today includes a number of significant provisions, such as improvements in lobbying disclosure. But the Senate missed a once-in-a-decade opportunity to address the most serious ethical problems plaguing Congress. It left open a major loophole in the lobbyist gift ban, it retreated from earlier promises to get rid of privately funded travel, it allowed Members to continue getting around revolving door restrictions by simply avoiding direct conversations with their former colleagues while accepting millions of dollars to run a lobbying office, and it refused to even vote on a proposal to make Senators pay the charter rate if they want to fly on corporate jets. Perhaps most important, the Senate rejected a thoughtful proposal to establish an independent ethics enforcement office.

The American people want to have confidence that their elected officials are held to the highest ethical standards. My judgment is that this bill doesn't meet that test.

Mr. President, the entire world continues to wait for signs that the administration takes seriously its moral and legal responsibilities to eliminate torture and abuse. It is long past time for the administration to give the American people and the world an ironclad assurance that these shameful tactics are no longer being used in any prison or detention facility under American control and that we are not outsourcing our torture to regimes well known for using them.

I strongly support the legislation that Senator Leahy has introduced to deal with this urgent problem and to see that our Nation is not farming out abusive interrogations to other countries. The bill makes crystal clear that we can't torture by proxy.

Abhorrence to torture is a fundamental value. Our attitude toward torture speaks volumes about our national conscience, our dedication to the rule of law, and our essential ideals. 9/11 is no excuse for abandoning our ideals.

The line separating right from wrong must clearly exclude the reprehensible practice called extraordinary rendition, the ridiculous code word for torture by proxy. Article 3 of the Treaty Against Torture, which the United States has ratified, provides: ``No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' The secretive U.S. practice of rendition is a violation of international law because it involves detaining prisoners without a shred of due process and delivering them for interrogation into the hands of countries known to commit torture. As one commentator noted: ``In terms of bad behavior, it stands side by side with contract killings.''

Ask Maher Arar. In the fall of 2002, Arar, a Canadian citizen, was returning to Montreal from a family visit in Tunisia and he made a stopover at Kennedy Airport in New York City. Acting in part on flawed intelligence from Canadian officials, U.S. Immigration officials seized Mr. Arar at the airport. He was not charged with a crime, or given a chance to talk with a lawyer. Instead, he was held in Brooklyn and interrogated for days by U.S. law enforcement authorities.

When the interrogation failed to produce incriminating information, Mr. Arar was flown to Jordan and handed over to Jordanian authorities. He was chained, blindfolded, and beaten in a van that transported him to the Syrian border. In Syria, he was placed in a small, dark cell-- three feet by six feet, like a grave--and was held there for almost a year. He was slapped, beaten, and whipped on his palms, wrists, and back with an electric cable. He begged them to stop. He heard other prisoners screaming as they were tortured. He signed any confessions he was told to sign.

Mr. Arar was released in October 2003. Syrian officials told reporters that their investigators found no link between Mr. Arar and al-Qaida. His confession turned out to be worthless and his suffering was pointless. Mr. Arar is now home in Canada.

How can any of us stand idly by knowing that this country condoned and facilitated such brutality?

Tragically, Mr. Arar is not the only victim. On March 6, 60 Minutes aired a report on rendition. On the program, Michael Scheuer, a recently retired CIA official who created its rendition program, admitted that he would ``have to assume'' that suspects the U.S. sends to Egypt are tortured. ``It's very convenient,'' he said. ``It's finding someone else to do your dirty work.''

The Defense Department has attempted to justify this tactic. On June 25, 2003, Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy, stating that whenever the U.S. transfers an individual to another country, ``United States policy is to obtain specific assurances from the receiving country that it will not torture the individual being transferred to that country. We can assure you that the United States would take steps to investigate credible allegations of torture and take appropriate action if there were reason to believe that those assurances were not being honored.''

Mr. Haynes' ``assurances,'' are difficult to accept. The State Department's annual human rights report, released last month, criticized numerous countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as torture. The State Department identified Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others, as countries practicing torture. Press reports make clear that since 9/11, the U.S. has flown 100-150 suspects to countries such as these. The State Department condemns Syria for torturing its prisoners, but Mr. Haynes blindly relies on Syria's promise that the prisoners we send there will be treated humanely.

Recent press reports also suggest that the assurances of humane treatment sought by the CIA are worth very little. According to today's Washington Post, ``one government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA said . . . `It's widely understood that the interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used.' '' The official also said, ``they say they are not abusing them . . . but we all know they do.''

According to the Post, an Arab diplomat, whose country is actively engaged in counterterrorism alongside the CIA said it was unrealistic to believe the CIA really wants to follow up on assurances. He said: ``It would be stupid to keep track of them because then you would know what's going on.'' He said, ``it's like don't ask don't tell.''

So, it seems that we are not fooling anybody but the American public.

We are a Nation of laws, not hypocrites. Our country is strong and our constitutional system has endured because it permits us to do great things and still ensure that we treat people fairly and humanely. We are not supposed to ``disappear'' people here.

Yet, that is exactly what rendition and the related tactic of ``ghost detainees'' amounts to, making people vanish into a shadowy world of secret abuse. In his report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, MG. Antonio Taguba

wrote that prisoners had not been registered as required by Army regulations and they were being moved around to avoid detection by the Red Cross. General Taguba called the practice ``deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in

violation of international law.'' Last September, Army investigators told the Senate Armed Services Committee that as many as 100 detainees at Abu Ghraib had been hidden from the Red Cross at the CIA's direction.

Last month, the Associated Press reported that one of the ``ghost detainees'' held at Abu Ghraib, Manadel al-Jamadi, died in November 2003 under CIA interrogation. He had been suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back. According to an Army guard who was asked by the interrogator to adjust al-Jamadi's position, blood gushed from his mouth ``as if a faucet had been turned on'' after he was released from his shackles.

Behavior like that forces us all to ask, ``what has America become?''

The issue shows no signs of abating. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that transfers of detainees from occupied territory to any other country ``are prohibited, regardless of their motive.'' Violations of the Article constitute ``grave breaches'' of the Treaty and qualify as ``war crimes'' under Federal law. Nevertheless, a Justice Department memorandum in March, 2004 re-interpreted the Treaty to allow the CIA to remove prisoners from Iraq for the purpose of ``facilitating interrogation.'' According to press reports, the CIA used this ``Goldsmith Memorandum'' as justification to transport ``as many as a dozen detainees'' out of Iraq. The legal analysis in the memorandum is an embarrassment. Yet it appears to have provided the legal justification for the CIA to commit war crimes.

The New York Times recently reported that the U.S. plans to transfer as many as half the 550 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to prisons in other countries. This week, a Federal judge blocked the government from transferring 13 citizens of Yemen until a hearing can be held on the propriety of the move. Lawyers for the detainees expressed concern that the prisoners would be delivered into the hands of torture.

Even worse, last week Attorney General Gonzales defended the practice of rendition, despite admitting that he ``can't fully control'' what other nations do and that he doesn't know whether countries have always complied with their promises.

Congress can't allow these shameful tactics to continue. Senator Leahy's bill is designed to prevent them. It states that no person in the custody or control of the United States can be sent to another country on the State Department list of countries that commit torture. Nor, may any person be sent to a country, even if it is not on the State Department list, where there are grounds to believe the person would be in danger of being tortured. The bill states that mere diplomatic assurances that detainees will be treated humanely are not sufficient to permit a detainee's transfer. Instead, in certain circumstances, the act permits delivery of the detainee where there is an actual mechanism to verify that the person will not be tortured, such as by allowing unfettered access to the detainee by humanitarian organizations.

The Bush administration's has clearly condoned the use of torture and abuse by our own government, as well as handing prisoners over to other countries for the same purpose. Officials have approved and used interrogation techniques that include feigning suffocation, feigning drowning, ``stress positions,'' sleep deprivation, and the use of unmuzzled dogs. According to one report, ``The methods employed by the CIA are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level detainees . . . ``because the FBI fears that the techniques could subject their agents to criminal lawsuits.

The anti-rendition bill offered today is a way to start addressing the problem. It deserves to pass as soon as possible. Torture and other abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo have done immense damage to America's standing in the world and has clearly made the war on terrorism harder to win. We need to repair that damage and re-claim our national commitment to fairness and decency.

As Edmund Burke said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' We in Congress have it in our power to prevent the triumph of an evil practice. Knowing what we now know, the Senate cannot simply look away and do nothing. I urge my colleagues to support us in ending these despicable abuses.

Mr. President, today, Senator DeWine and I are introducing legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products for the protection of the public health. We cannot in good conscience allow the fuderal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products.

Last year, a large bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to grant the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. It was a major step forward in the long-term effort to enact this legislation, which health experts believe is the most important action Congress could take to protect children from this deadly addiction. Unfortunately, the legislation was blocked by a small group of House conferees.

We are reintroducing our bill today and we are hopeful that 2005 will be the year when Congress takes the final steps to enact this extraordinarily important health legislation. This bill has majority support in the Senate and strong support amongst rank and file members in the House. Now is the time to make it the law of the land.

The stakes are vast. Five thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and two thousand of them become daily smokers. Nearly a thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of more than half-way measures.

We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

The tobacco industry currently spends over eleven billion dollars a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that more than 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood.

Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies'

own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products.

If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of children. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.''

FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes.

The FDA conducted the longest rule-making proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute.

The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong.

Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive.

The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.

Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded.

Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety.

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively.

This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs--to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to help smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.

Enacting this bill this year is the right thing to do for America's children.

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

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

Three minutes.

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

Mr. President, I believe we have had a good debate. I know the intent of the amendment's sponsor is an honest one, but I really think we are going down a trail we should not be. And I do not see how you can start parsing it back away from it. So I would move to table the amendment at this point and ask for the yeas and nays.

All right. At the appropriate time I will move to table and will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. President, has all time been yielded back?

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. President, I raise a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order--

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

I thank the Senator for his approach on this.

Let me make a couple of points. Again, in a way, there is not as big a problem here as indicated. For instance, I have been assured the example that was used about ANWR, this, in fact, would apply to that and a point of order would be in order against the ANWR amendment being added in conference that had not been in the other body. We will work through this.

The second point is and one of the reasons why I was prepared to make a point of order, Senator Dodd and I, postcloture, have been very meticulous; even when there were amendments he or I or both of us supported, if they were not germane, we have not included them in the managers' package. We have held the line because once you start allowing exceptions, there is no end to it. We were trying to get through with as strong a package as possible.

With that, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2980

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator started moving toward giving an example. So that I will fully understand exactly what the Senator is trying to get at here, can he give me a couple of examples? He has referred to military, for instance. I don't want to use any particular weapon system because I don't want to make anyone mad, but take generic helicopter. If the Pentagon or the President's budget only included 100 helicopters and a Senator of the Committee on Armed Services, in conference, said no, we are going to make it 200, would that be an example of where the Senator is trying to get this language to apply?

That is the type of example.

If the Senator would yield for a further question, the language we have would allow for that kind of designation to continue?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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.