Floor Statements

Mr. President, I, too, rise today on the Senate floor to discuss the very serious issue of Iraq and how we move forward there to eventually get our troops home. I have been in the Senate 2 years. Before that, I was in the House for 5 years. That is a relatively short amount of time, but I daresay I believe, as do many of my colleagues who have been here 20 or 30 years, this truly is one of the most important issues we will ever debate and have an impact on. In fact, even for a career that long, it may be the single most important issue we will debate and have an impact on.

I hope all of us take that to heart. Don't say it as a truism but understand what that means and what it demands of us. What it demands of us is that we act responsibly and whatever our feelings and point of view, we put them forward in a responsible way for the good of America.

What do I mean by that? I primarily mean two things. First of all, each of us as Senators has the right to oppose a plan, including the President's plan. I will be the first to say that. I will be the first to defend my colleagues' right to oppose any plan, including the President's plan. But along with that right comes responsibility, and each of us also has a responsibility to be for a plan to move forward in Iraq. It does not need to be the President's plan, but we sure as heck have a responsibility to be for some coherent plan, in some level of detail. How do we move forward in Iraq for the good of the country, for our security, and for stability in the Middle East?

Second, what being responsible means is taking to the Senate floor to impact policy, to take action but not simply to offer words that have no impact in the real world but only serve to undercut the morale and focus of our troops and to embolden the enemy. Some resolutions, which are mere words--they don't constrain any activity of the President or of our troops--I think have that unintended result. They do not limit troops, they do not limit troop numbers, but they sure as heck destroy morale. They certainly embolden the enemy. Don't believe me about that judgment. Turn to very respected military leaders, including GEN David Petraeus, who said that directly, frankly, in his testimony before Senate committees.

I have been guided by that responsibility, to face the issues squarely, to be responsible, to be for some plan--not necessarily the President's but some real, detailed plan; to take action on the Senate floor and not float words which can have negative consequences for our troops and also embolden the enemy.

After a lot of thought and in that context and after a lot of careful study, including many hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on which I sit, I have decided to support the President's plan as a reasonable attempt to move forward--indeed, as a final attempt to stabilize the situation. But I have also decided to do it in the context of three very strong recommendations which I have made many times directly to the President and to other key advisers, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, such as the President's National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, and others. Those three strong, clear recommendations are as follows:

No. 1, I do believe, with the Iraq Study Group and others, we need to put even more emphasis on a diplomatic effort and, in my opinion, that should be to encourage and embrace and participate in a regional diplomatic conference that involves all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. This would be very different from direct bilateral talks with either Iran or Syria. With regard to that push, I disagree with that, including, to some extent, the Iraq Study Group. But I do think a regional conference focussed specifically and exclusively on stabilizing Iraq, promoting democracy in Iraq, would be very positive.

No. 2, I agree with many that we can be even stronger, clearer, firmer about benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and consequences if the Iraqi Government does not meet those benchmarks. President Bush has talked a lot about what are clear benchmarks, but I have encouraged him to go even further, be even more direct and clear, including in public, about those benchmarks. Those would be things such as the Iraqis continuing to take clear, strong action against all who promote violence, whether they are Sunni or Shia or anyone else; things such as an oil revenue law that must be passed in the very near term; things such as major reform of the debaathification process, which has stirred up enormous sectarian conflict and hatred, particularly from the Shia and Sunnis.

Third, I have been very clear in saying over and over and over that we must constantly reexamine these new troop numbers to make sure they can have a meaningful impact on the ground in the short term. I am for trying this as a final attempt, but I am not for throwing too little too late at the effort.

I respect the judgment of military leaders such as GEN David Petraeus. I take them at their word, and I respect their judgment that this additional 21,500, coupled with redeployment and reemphasis of troops already in theater, is enough, but I think we have to constantly examine that to make sure we don't make the mistake we have made in the past, which is underestimating troop need.

There has been a lot of discussion about the Iraq Study Group report, for good reason. A lot of leading citizens contributed very thoughtful analysis to that report. But I think far too much of that discussion has unfairly portrayed the President's plan and different versions of it, like what I am talking about, as in stark contrast to the Iraq Study Group report. In fact, I don't believe that to be the case at all. It is not exactly the Iraq Study Group report. It is different, but it has enormous areas of overlap.

With regard to political solutions that have to happen lead by Iraqis on the ground in Iraq, there is enormous agreement between what I am supporting, what the President is describing, and the Iraq Study Group report. With regard to a diplomatic initiative, there is enormous overlap between what I am pushing in terms of a regional diplomatic conference involving all of Iraq's neighbors and what the Iraq Study Group discusses. Yes, they seem to favor direct bilateral talks with countries such as Iran and Syria. I do not and the President does not. But there is still enormous overlap and agreement on things we can do very proactively and aggressively on the diplomatic front.

Even on the military component there is great overlap and significant agreement. In that regard I would simply point to one very important passage on page 73 which states clearly, discussing military troop levels and numbers:

We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or

surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to

speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S.

commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be

effective.

Well, of course, the new U.S. commander of Iraq is GEN David Petraeus, and he has suggested and asked for exactly that, which is why it is significant in the President's plan.

So I urge all of my colleagues to give this issue serious thought, to be responsible, to advocate whatever is in their heart and in their mind but to do it responsibly. Support some plan, and do not throw out mere words that have no concrete effect except undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 7 minutes as in morning business, and following that, Senator Landrieu be given permission to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I come to the Senate floor for a painful--for us--but necessary task, and that is to live up to our wager with colleagues from the great State of Illinois and congratulate them on the Bears' defeat of the New Orleans Saints in the NFC championship game.

Of course, the Bears won fair and square 39 to 14, but that score really doesn't reflect how the game was actually played. It was much closer than that for a long time. The Bears' defense played exceptionally, hats-off to them, strong pass rush that really put the Saints' quarterback, Drew Brees, in some precarious situations. They also played overall a really tough physical game, defensively and offensively. Because of some of the bone-crunching hits delivered by the Bears' defenders, the Saints had multiple turnovers, and certainly that was part of the problem from the Saints' perspective. But, really, I think the Chicago Bears won the game because of their incredible ability to manage field position. Each time the Saints' offense took the field, it appeared as if they had their back to the wall, including when a safety was scored against them.

So congratulations to the Chicago Bears. Again, Senator Landrieu and I are here to fulfill our commitment and pay our debt. By the way, we just served Senator Barack Obama's staff a lunch of great Louisiana food, and we are about to do the exact same thing for Senator Durbin and his staff.

But as we give the Bears their due, I know both Senator Landrieu and I also want to praise the Saints for an absolutely unbelievable season with the biggest turnaround in NFL history, going from a 3 in 13 last year to the NFC championship game this year. Much more importantly than just that, they serve as a wonderful example of renewal and rebuilding from which we all can learn and emulate in terms of the rebuilding of the gulf coast.

A lot of folks say it is just football, it is just sports, but particularly in the context of everything folks in the greater New Orleans area are going through post-Katrina, the Saints meant an awful lot to us this season, and their example of leadership and integrity and great turnarounds and commitment is something we all took pride in and I think something we all learned from. That example is going to be repeated in many other different walks of live as we spur on our recovery on the gulf coast even further.

So with that, Mr. President, I again congratulate the Chicago Bears. I congratulate our two Senate colleagues from Illinois. I wish them all the best in this Sunday's Super Bowl. But I also note, maybe they are going to need that good luck because they face another New Orleans powerhouse, Peyton Manning, in Miami. So good luck to them.

I yield the floor to Senator Landrieu.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 110 to Amendment No. 100

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Vitter amendment No. 110 be called up.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment No. 110. It is very simple, very straightforward, very basic, but also very important. It is to reduce, in a meaningful way, the excessive paperwork burden facing small businesses.

As I begin, I also want to thank Senator Voinovich for cosponsoring this amendment. As have I, he has long been at work on this issue and has offered great leadership. I thank him for joining with me in this effort.

Businesses face enormous hurdles and obstacles and challenges, particularly small business. Unfortunately, one of them has become the enormous paperwork burden created by all levels of government. A small business in Louisiana, depending on the nature and location of the business, has to deal with myriad Federal agencies. Just off the top of my head, these include the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, SBA, Labor, Commerce, IRS, and Customs, to name a few. That doesn't include--and my amendment doesn't pertain to--all of the State agencies with which they similarly have to deal and file paperwork because of regulations from local entities at the governmental level.

The compounded effect of this is enormous. All of those requirements, paperwork and others, can be absolutely suffocating. There has been some quantification of this enormous compliance cost. In September 2005, the SBA Office of Advocacy released a study that gave us a glimpse into this. It said businesses with fewer than 20 employees spend more than $7,600 per employee just to comply with Federal regulations. That is a staggering cost. To a truly small business that doesn't have a vice president in charge of compliance, doesn't have a team of lawyers or a team of paper filers in the back office to take care of it, that is a real burden. It distracts the principals of the business from doing what they set out to do, the main focus and mission of the business.

All too often, the way those regulations and requirements are administered is in the tone of a ``gotcha'' game, fining small businesses for paperwork violations just to say ``gotcha,'' just for the sake of doing it, of issuing those violations and in some cases of gaining revenue for the department of government. All of that is wrong, and we need to change it.

Nobody here--myself included--is arguing that we don't need a legitimate layer of regulation to protect and promote health and safety, the environment, worker safety, et cetera. Nobody is arguing against that. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about today is an amendment I offer on the minimum wage bill which includes provisions I introduced separately as the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2007. I thank Mr. Neugebauer of Texas in the House for introducing identical companion legislation, as we both did in the last Congress. Again, this is basic, straightforward, simple, but very important to small business.

This is exactly how it would work. It would direct Federal agencies not to impose civil fines for a first-time violation of their agency's paperwork requirements by a small business unless the head of the agency determines the following: the violation has the potential to cause serious harm to the public interest; not issuing a fine may impair criminal investigations; the violation is a violation of Internal Revenue law; the violation is not corrected within 6 months; or the violation presents a danger to public health or safety. In addition, the amendment says that fines can be waived in the case of a violation that could potentially present a danger, if the violation is corrected within 24 hours of the small business receiving notification of the violation. It is important that the first list of those possibilities are mandatory. An agency can't issue civil fines for a first-time violation unless one of those things happens. But the second part of it--fines can be waived unless corrected within 24 hours--is discretionary. A fine doesn't have to be waived in that instance by the appropriate Federal regulatory agency.

This is very constrained, very limited, very common sense. Again, the most important part of the provision is, it is first-time violations. It is a small business. It is civil penalties only. We are not talking criminal. We are not talking a big business with a big compliance section. We are not talking a mandatory waiving of fines for health and safety violations where it goes to public health.

This is not only a reasonable thing to do, it is long overdue considering the enormous compliance costs I alluded to before--$7,600 per worker for a small business of 20 employees or less--just to take care of Federal requirements. That doesn't count State or local. We are only dealing with Federal because we are the Federal legislature.

This bill is particularly relevant to my home following the devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. The small business base in Louisiana was devastated by those horrific events. In many areas, small businesses are starting from scratch, and the whole community of small businesses is starting from scratch as it begins to recover from that destruction. Particularly in that context, they need this sort of reasonable relief--limited, focused civil fines only, first-time violations only, small business only, only mandatory waiver when it doesn't involve a threat to public health and safety, all of the very strenuous and carefully outlined requirements I set out.

I hope everybody in this Chamber can come together to support this commonsense proposal. In a broader vein, I hope this is a part--not the only element but a part--of our coming together to pass a minimum wage increase with small business regulatory

and other relief. We should not do one or the other in this context; we should do both. That is the reasonable bipartisan compromise which I hope we are moving to on the Senate floor--yes, a minimum wage increase; yes, real and meaningful regulatory and other relief for small business such as the commonsense paperwork reduction act.

In addition, I hope that small business relief involves relief in an area that is most important to small business and so many millions of Americans; that is, the ability to access and afford health insurance. We will have amendments about that as well.

I urge all Members of the Senate to support this modest commonsense but important measure. I urge all Members of the Senate to come together to support a minimum wage increase with real relief for small business, whether it is dealing with paperwork, whether it is affording or accessing health care insurance--all of those important things small businesses face while continuing to be the engine of job creation, the backbone of our Louisiana and American economy.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to take a few minutes to urge my Senate colleagues to carefully study and support my amendment to ban spouses of sitting Members of the Senate from lobbying any Member of the Senate or any Senate staff person.

This is a very important debate. It goes to the heart of rebuilding confidence of the American people in our institutions--Senate, House, all of Congress, all of the Federal Government.

As we all know, we have seen scandal after scandal over several years, certainly involving both parties, that has, for obvious and good reason, rocked people's confidence.

At the heart of almost all of these scandals is a very simple, basic issue and that is public officials using their public position to enrich themselves, to enrich their family, and, of course, the public interest being sold down the road.

That is at the heart of this debate, and that concern is at the heart of my amendment. Again, my amendment--we will vote on this later this week--says very simply: No spouse of a sitting Member of the Senate can lobby the Senate, can lobby that Senator, can lobby that Senator's office, can lobby any Senator, can lobby any Senate office, can lobby any Senate committee.

Again, I don't think this is a peripheral issue. I think it goes to the heart of the matter: People using public office to enrich themselves, to enrich their families.

For the same reason, I thought it was important that we prohibit family members from going on the campaign payroll. Unfortunately, that was voted down. I think this is even more in need of strong action because certainly lobbying connections were at the heart of so many of the scandals that got us to this debate.

There are two big problems, two big conflicts we are talking about that this amendment can largely solve. One is for certain lobbyists to have undue influence. That is clearly an issue with regard to lobbying of spouses of sitting Members of the Senate.

The underlying bill would prohibit those spouses from lobbying their spouse Member, that office. That is fine. But clearly, any Senate spouse is going to have an enormous advantage in terms of access and influence to other Senators and other Senate offices. Imagine if a spouse lobbyist walks in the door and his or her spouse happens to be the chair of a committee on which the Member she is lobbying sits. That is a pretty significant power relationship right in the midst of that lobbying. Clearly, there is that real danger of undue influence and access.

There is a second problem too. In my opinion, the second problem is even

bigger than the first, and that is for a special interest, for a monied interest, to have a mechanism to write a big check straight into the family bank account of a sitting Senator, to directly and dramatically increase the income, the personal wealth of a sitting Senator. That absolutely happens whenever you are going to allow spouses of sitting Senators to lobby.

Again, that I think is an even bigger issue and certainly has been front and center in terms of a number of problems and scandals that have come up and reported fully in the media in the last couple of years on both sides of the aisle.

In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that this recent article about the problem, about that very issue in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Certainly.

No, it does not. I appreciate the question. In developing this amendment, we dealt with a lot of different ideas and a lot of different versions. I mistakenly filed a version with the grandfather clause in it. That was never my intent, in terms of filing an amendment in this Congress and in this debate. As soon as I learned that from my staff, I amended the amendment, and so it does not contain that grandfather clause.

My thinking is very simple. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it is a problem, it is a problem. And because somebody has been doing it for a few years doesn't right the wrong.

I do have an exception, which is different from a grandfather clause. I bent over backward to try to meet every reasonable argument. The exception says: If the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more before the marriage or a year or more before the Member's first election to Congress, that is a bit of a different situation that is allowed.

I can make an argument for even doing away with that exception, but I tried to bend over backward for what I considered any legitimate argument.

Certainly.

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

I think that is a direct answer to the Senator's question.

Madam President, I believe I have the floor.

Madam President, I wish to emphasize what I stated to the distinguished Senator from California. I tried to meet every legitimate argument. I bent over backward with regard to that issue. Specifically, I point out that the exception in my amendment that says, quite simply, if the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more prior to the marriage or a year or more prior to the Member's first election to the House or Senate, then that is an exception, and they can continue lobbying.

Every other case is a real problem, a real conflict, and specifically I don't think a grandfather clause that protects folks who are doing it now is appropriate. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it poses real ethical questions--that is true whether one has been doing it for 10 years or whether one starts tomorrow--I urge all the Senate to reject that grandfather clause.

The message of a grandfather clause is simple: Yes, we are going to get serious about ethics, as long as it doesn't do anything in practice, as long as it doesn't affect our friends.

I don't think that is the right policy. I don't think that is the right message.

I urge all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this amendment. The American people are watching this debate. They have seen the leadup to this debate. They have seen the scandals. They have seen the rhetoric in the campaigns, and they are wondering: Is this going to be real or is this going to be a farce?

We have had some votes, quite frankly, that are leading folks to believe this is a lot of show, a lot of sound and fury with nothing behind it. I hope we can prove those cynics wrong, but I have to admit, I am quickly becoming one of those cynics.

I believe this vote is going to say a lot about how serious we are. If there is a vote on the grandfather clause issue, that is going to say a lot about whether we are going to act when it has a consequence in this body or just act when it doesn't affect anybody in this body as it stands now.

Madam President, I urge all my colleagues to look at the amendment, support the amendment, certainly resist any grandfather clause which would be horrible policy, and send a very simple message to the American people. I look forward to a fuller debate on the issue and a vote.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the distinguished Senator from California for those points and questions. Let me respond to each one.

First, I think what you said, literally at the very beginning of your comments, says it all. You said this would be fine if it didn't affect anyone, but it does. This would be window dressing if it didn't affect anyone, if it did not do anything. But, yes, it does. And it should.

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

Reclaiming my time, the point is, yes, it is a great vote as long as it doesn't affect anyone here, as long as it doesn't affect anyone in the body now, as long as it doesn't affect any spouse.

I disagree. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it is a problem, it is a problem. Having done it in the past doesn't cure the conflict, doesn't cure the problem. I think demanding that a grandfather clause be attached to this is the height of cynicism. We are going to reform things as long as it doesn't affect us. I think that is bad policy and I certainly think it is a very negative message to send to the American people--although it may be a rather clear message about what this debate and exercise is all about.

In terms of the question about official contact, I think that is very clear because it is in the context of the lobbyist disclosure law. It is in the context of lobbyist contact. However, if the Senator continues to believe it is not clear and wants to offer any clarifying language, I would look at that and work with the Senator. I will be happy to work on clarifying language. Obviously, no one wants to prohibit spouses from going to the Supreme Court dinner or anything else. I think that is a relatively--I don't think it is a problem. But even if you think it is one, I believe it is an easy problem to solve.

Certainly.

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

Again, I think this goes to the heart of the matter. I think this grandfather clause issue goes to the heart of the matter. Are we going to do something that ``doesn't affect anybody,'' that doesn't matter in terms of people here and now and make a big show of it or are we going to make a difference and stop practices that the huge majority of the American people think are a real problem?

I hope we are going to do the latter. I hope we are going to be real and substantive and not go through a PR exercise, and I think the American people are watching to find out. I think this, among other votes, will be a clarifying moment.

I thank the Senator for her questions and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, I send the modification to the desk.

I want to spend a few minutes regarding this general debate to say I hope that we have, in the rest of this debate, an adequate opportunity to debate and address and vote on some of the key issues that are and should be at the center of this discussion. I think there is now a rush to cloture, quite frankly--specifically to cut off the opportunity to vote on some amendments. I hope we do not do that.

I commend the majority leader for the suggestion that we are going to have votes on many significant amendments on Tuesday. I ask him that that list be very inclusive, to include all significant amendments in which either side of the aisle is interested. I specifically highlight three.

One is the DeMint amendment, and I appreciate the words of the majority leader regarding working with Senator DeMint on that amendment. I fully support that amendment. Much more importantly, that amendment has proved to have majority support on the floor of this body. There was a motion to table, and it lost. So that amendment has majority support, and clearly we need to vote and pass that amendment. It has already been proven that it has majority support.

The second amendment I would highlight is a Judd Gregg amendment with regard to spending and earmarks and waste. Again, that is very much at the heart of this discussion. Earmarks--earmark abuse, what that does to spending, how it inflates it--have been part of the abuses, unfortunately, that have come to light in the last several years. So that is absolutely at the heart of this debate. A lot of Members of the Senate are interested in that amendment, so we need a debate and a vote on that amendment.

Third, I would highlight my own amendment which I just modified, and that has to do with spouses of Members of the Senate lobbying. Again, this debate, this bill, is about two things: ethics and lobbying. I don't know how you come up with any argument that the issue of spouses lobbying, gaining unusual access, having the opportunity of being a conduit for large amounts of money to be deposited in the family bank account of Members from special interests, isn't at the heart of that debate. That is at the heart of the lobbying issue. That is at the heart of the ethics issue. It is foursquare in the center of this debate, and certainly we need an adequate debate and a vote on that idea.

I urge all Senators to support a full and open debate and a full and open airing and voting on important amendments, including but not limited to those three. I very much look forward to that next week. I certainly hope cloture is not invoked in an attempt, as many of us fear, frankly, to cut off certain significant and relevant amendments.

Certainly.

No, it doesn't. I will tell you exactly what it does. First of all, I appreciate the question. Certainly I am eager to give the Senator and all Members a copy of it, which I will do immediately, and that will be well before any full debate and vote. But let me use the opportunity to explain what the modification does.

The modification is very simple. It moves the provision to the Senate rules, and it makes it apply to lobbying Members of the Senate only. I did the modification for one reason and one reason only--not because I think that limitation excluding activity on the House side is better but because it makes it germane to the bill and therefore guarantees me a vote.

So, to go to the question, the provision--it is only about lobbying the Senate. But in that context, there is an exclusion if the spouse lobbyist was an active lobbyist a year or more before the marriage or the first election. But there is no grandfathering clause other than that. I hope that answers the question of the Senator.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, if the Senator would yield, I have a very similar 30-second housekeeping matter.

I appreciate it.

Madam President, I request to go to the regular order regarding the Vitter amendment No. 9 and send a revision of that amendment to the desk.

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. President, I stand to use this opportunity to again focus us on what I think is a very significant issue in this ongoing ethics and lobbyist debate, and that is the unfortunate practice, in my opinion, and the very clear and huge opportunity for abuse that exists when spouses of sitting Members, Senate or House, are lobbyists and act as lobbyists.

Now, the underlying bill and the underlying substitute, as we all know, have a prohibition on this issue, and it simply says in that case the spouse lobbyist can't directly lobby the Member he or she is married to, and that is good. I hope we all agree with that. I hope that is a no-brainer, an absolute minimum we would all agree to.

I have an amendment on which I look forward to voting in the very near future. It is amendment No. 9. That would broaden that in a way that I think is absolutely necessary. That would simply be a broadening to say that a spouse cannot lobby any Member of Congress, House or Senate. I think that is necessary if we are going to get real, if we are going to get serious in this ethics and lobbying debate, and if this bill is going to be a meaningful attempt to right grievous wrongs we have seen, including in the last couple of years.

The Presiding Officer came from the House of Representatives, as did I. Unfortunately, as we know, there have been these abuses. Really, the abuses fall into two categories; there are not just one but two real dangers we are talking about. One is that a lobbyist who is married to a sitting Member clearly has unusual access to other Members of Congress--forget about his

or her spouse but to other Members. You can't tell me if a lobbyist is going in to see a Member and he happens to be married, say, to a female Member who is chair of a committee on which that other Member sits, that doesn't cross the other Member's mind. You can't tell me that is not part of the equation; that is not part of the backdrop on that lobbying relationship. Clearly, that spouse lobbyist is going to have extraordinary, unusual access to all Members, or many Members, not simply the Member to whom he or she is married.

Of course, there are all sorts of social occasions where we get together, as we should, as families, with spouses. So there is that very real issue. But there is a second very real issue which, in my opinion, is even more serious and more pernicious and that is the clear opportunity for moneyed interests, special interests, to write checks directly into the family bank account of a Member through the lobbyist spouse.

I wish I could stand here and say that this was a hypothetical. I wish I could stand here and say that this was a solution searching for a problem in the real world. I can't. This has happened. This does happen. There have been cases, including in the House, that have been in the press in the last year or two where this does happen, and spouses are making big salaries from interests that have very important matters before Congress and before the Member to whom that lobbyist spouse is married.

This is not theoretical. This is not a solution looking for a problem. This is real and this is real abuse. It is simply a bribe by another name because it is a conduit to send significant amounts of money to the family bank account--the same family bank account that the Member, of course, lives on and relies on and enjoys.

I think this is a very serious issue. Clearly, if we are bringing up a bill that is about two things, ethics and lobbying, you can't ignore this issue. This issue is right in the middle of it. It is all about lobbying. It is all about ethics. It is all about both of those things, that this whole debate is about.

Let me point out that in my amendment I do include an exception. I think it is a fair exception. I can make an argument to have no exceptions, and I was tempted to do that. I wanted to bend over backwards to be fair and meet any legitimate questions out there. There is an exception if the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more before the marriage happened, and/or before the Member's first election to Congress happened. In that situation, I think what it would mean is that this spouse had a real, bona fide career and was doing this and built up that practice, way before the marriage relationship ever happened or the representation relationship--membership in the House or Senate--ever happened. I think that legitimately is a different situation than the others.

Again, I can make the argument for no exceptions. I can certainly understand the sentiment: get rid of that exception. But in an abundance of trying to meet reasonable questions, reasonable objections, I included that exception.

I urge all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to take a hard look and then to vote for the amendment because this goes to the heart of what we are talking about. This has been a real abuse. It is subject to continuing abuse. If we do not address it, this exercise, frankly, is not going to have much credibility in the eyes of the American people. If we do not address it, we are not going to be doing enough to restore the confidence of the American people in this institution and the institution across the Rotunda, the House of Representatives.

This has to be at the center of our debate, and I look forward to continuing the debate. I will be happy to answer any objections or questions and continue that debate in the next day or two and look forward to a vote on this very central amendment. I will specifically talk to the majority leader about a vote. He has not responded yet. Certainly, I cannot imagine a reasonable, fair debate on this question of ethics and lobbying and yet we do not at least vote on this issue of spouses lobbying Congress. Of course, I hope we vote the right way and forbid it.

Mr. President, I look forward to the continuation of this discussion and the vote and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 9 which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the leaders, the floor managers, all those involved in this important debate for putting this front and center of our business in the new Congress. It is very appropriate we do so.

I hope we all recognize, after the last few years, we need a very focused, sincere, determined effort to strengthen the law, strengthen enforcement, and rebuild the confidence of the American people in our institutions.

These two amendments that I bring to the Senate I hope will do that. They are part of a package I have introduced, along with three amendments I introduced and talked about briefly yesterday.

Let me get to this first amendment today. It is a very simple, straightforward idea to address what, unfortunately, is a very real issue and a very real cause for concern by the American people. That is the practice, in some cases, of spouses of Members of the House and Senate being registered lobbyists, making large amounts of money in that profession, lobbying at the same time they are a spouse of a Member of the House or a Member of the Senate. My amendment is very straightforward and says we will not allow that.

The underlying bill addresses that in a very narrow way, to say that spouses in that situation can't directly lobby their own spouse or that Members' office. That is great, but clearly a person in that situation--a Senate spouse, a House spouse--has enormous entre to other Members, to other offices. My amendment is broader and says we are not going to allow that. Spouses of sitting Members of the House and Senate cannot lobby.

Unfortunately, I wish history was such that Members could argue this is a solution looking for a problem. That is not the case. This happens. It has happened. It has clearly been abused. There have been instances that have been reported that have caused great legitimate alarm and concern by the American people of this being abused. This has come to light in the last several years. Spouses making large amounts of money, bringing that income to the family bank account--obviously, the Member of Congress is part of it, participates in it--from lobbying.

There is a situation with two fundamental problems. One is a lobbyist spouse clearly having extraordinary access to other Members and their offices. That is one real problem. The second real problem is maybe even more significant. That is the opportunity for significant moneyed interests, special interests, whatever you want to call it, to be able to write a check, a big check, in the form of a salary that goes directly into a Member's family bank account through the spouse. That is a practice that has been used and abused in the recent past. Again, this is not a solution looking for a problem.

We, also, point out there is an exception in my amendment. I debated whether to include this exception. I can make an argument that we should not even allow this exception, but to bend over backwards, to be fair, to answer some concerns of other Members, I included the exception. It says, if this lobbyist spouse was a lobbyist more than a year before the Member was first elected to the Congress, they can continue with that activity. In other words, someone who legitimately built up a career well before that marriage was ever seriously contemplated, can continue. Again, I can make an argument of no exceptions, but in the interest of bending over backward to meet some legitimate questions, I included that exception.

I hope all Members of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, will carefully look at this amendment and support it. This has been and is a practice. It has been used and abused in the past. It has clearly caused serious concerns among the American people. It has been in press reports and other disclosures in the last couple of years.

To say we are doing wholesale lobbying and ethics reform, and, oh, by the way, we are not going to touch this, we are going to forget about this, would make a folly of the whole exercise. I encourage all Members of the Senate to support this concept.

Let's make a clear-cut rule. Let's get rid of this clear conflict of interest to potential abuses, unusual access to Members, as well as the possibility of special interests basically being able to write a big check directly into a Member's family bank account.

Amendment No. 10 to Amendment No. 3

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside that amendment and call up my second amendment of the day, amendment No. 10.

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

Mr. President, I think this amendment also addresses an important issue in this ethics and lobbying reform debate; that is, the significance of the penalties involved for serious violations.

This amendment is very straightforward. It says that registered lobbyists who fail to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act--and after that is called to their attention, and then they fail to remedy the situation, fail to fix it, fail to follow other aspects of the law--the maximum penalty can be $200,000. Current law, right now, is $50,000. I simply think that is too low for the most serious violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, considering that in virtually all of these cases the lobbyist is given notice and allowed to correct the situation before we ever get to this sort of very serious penalty.

The underlying bill on the floor, as I understand it, will propose to increase the current law penalty from $50,000 to $100,000. I think that is obviously movement in the right direction but not far enough. My amendment would propose changing current law from a maximum penalty of $50,000 to $200,000.

Again, let me emphasize a couple things. I think there is the wide and correct perception by the American people that in a lot of these cases you have a law, you have a violation, and it just ends up being a slap on the wrist--the cost of doing business to a lobbyist who is making millions. I think that is true in many cases. That is a real defect in the law. We need to correct that.

Secondly, we are talking about a maximum penalty--up to $200,000. It does not mean it has to be $200,000. And we are talking about a situation where a violation is called to a person's attention and that person fails to comply with the law within 60 days, fails to right the wrong by complying with other provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

So given all of that, given all of those circumstances, I think a maximum penalty--maximum--of up to $200,000 is very legitimate and is a change that is really overdue.

Again, I implore all the Members of the Senate, Democrat and Republican, to take a good, hard look at this amendment. I think when they do, the vast majority will support it. I certainly look forward to that.

With that, Mr. President, I look forward to further debate on these amendments and certainly votes on these amendments, and I have received commitments for that.

With that, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 7.

I thank the Chair. Under the previous order, I will talk about this amendment for 5 minutes and then the floor managers will do the same.

Mr. President, I explained this yesterday. It is a very straightforward amendment. It simply increases penalties--I think appropriately--for willful and knowing misrepresentations on financial disclosure reports.

As you know, many people in Government, including U.S. Senators, have to file financial disclosure statements. That is section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1975. It is very basic information about not every detail of our finances, but the broad brush of an individual's finances. This applies to others, certainly, in the administration, executive branch, as well as some in the judicial branch.

Section 104 of that act is about the penalties. That says the Attorney General can file a civil suit against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies that sort of document or knowingly and willfully fails to report that information. But the maximum fine under that civil suit is $10,000. Mr. President, this can literally be a slap on the wrist in certain situations. This can literally encourage people to falsify documents or not report certain information completely or properly because, No. 1, that figure will never be noticed or caught; No. 2, worst case, if it is, it is only $10,000. It may be worth paying that and trying to get away with it versus disclosing certain information.

That is unacceptable. This amendment fixes that. It raises the maximum civil penalty from $10,000 to $50,000, and it allows--doesn't mandate--the Attorney General to bring criminal charges in certain situations, with a maximum penalty of up to 1 year imprisonment. Again, in certain situations, that would be appropriate and the current law in certain situations, I believe, will actually encourage folks to try to get away with noncompliance, nondisclosure.

Finally, I ask this simple question in support of the amendment: If that is the right approach for the average American citizen, why should it not be the right approach for U.S. Senators, House Members, and members of the executive branch? Why do I say that? Well, if an average American citizen knowingly and willfully falsifies tax documents, guess what. They are in a heap of trouble and they face much greater potential consequences than a civil fine of up to $10,000. They absolutely face potential criminal charges. So if it is right and appropriate for the average American citizen, certainly the same rule should bear on Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and members of the executive branch, no more or less. What is fair is fair. We need to be treated like the average American citizen.

With that, I yield back my time and look forward to wrapping up this debate.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I urge all Members to vote against the motion to table. I believe I am correct that it will be in the form of a motion to table.

I urge them to vote against the motion to table. I appreciate the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about this amendment. However, I do think this is not a solution looking for a problem. This is a real problem that we need to solve.

The problem is simply this: This has been abused in the past. There are clear and documented cases whereby Members, candidates especially, use their political position to add to the family income. If the case of a Member or a candidate hiring a family member on a campaign could truly be enforced, if we had a way consistently in all cases to make sure that the law was being followed that only bona fide work should be paid for at fair market value prices, that would be one thing. That is the law. You can do it, but it is only supposed to be done to compensate actual work at fair market value prices.

The fact is, there is no way to police that. There have been plenty of situations, unfortunately, in the past where this opportunity was used to allow a candidate to use his political position to increase the family income. This has come to light in the last several years. This has been an unfortunate practice. I think it is part of a whole series of abuses that Americans are just fed up with. They see Members of Congress, people in politics, using their political position to increase their income or increase their family's income. This is a situation which is wide open for that abuse.

Again, it would be one thing if present law were enforced. Present law says you can do it, yes, but it is only supposed to be for real work, bona fide services at a reasonable compensation level. It is crystal clear that that provision is not and cannot be policed. There is no real meaningful way to ensure that. So it is an opportunity which has been used by some folks who use their political position to add to their family income.

This goes to the heart of the concerns of many Americans. It goes to the heart of a lot of issues on the lobbying side. It goes to the heart of issues involving campaign finance.

I urge all Members of the Senate to solve this problem in the only way that is practical, which is to draw a red line, create a clear prohibition so that we avoid those abuses which have unfortunately happened in the past.

I urge Members of the Senate to vote against the motion to table.

I yield back my time.

I ask unanimous consent simply to be recognized for the time remaining of my 5 minutes so that I may also address my second amendment which will be voted on. I misunderstood. I thought the time allotments only applied to the amendment I addressed, not the other amendment. Therefore, I want to address the second amendment as well.

Mr. President, the second of my amendments that will be voted on through a motion to table is with regard to the clear loophole in campaign finance law about Indian tribes. We have talked about this and debated this. This has been widely recognized for quite some time. It is a loophole in the law that allows tribes to give to candidates directly, including gambling proceeds, without any necessity of forming a PAC and going through those rigorous requirements that corporations, labor unions, and other entities have to do. This is a loophole that has been widely recognized and needs to be closed.

Certainly no legitimate argument exists that this is beyond the present debate. Think about the single biggest scandal that got us to this debate, the Jack Abramoff scandal. Indian tribes and their unfettered access to money, including gambling revenues, was at the center of the single biggest scandal that brought us to this debate. There is no legitimate argument that the amendment is somehow extraneous to the debate. If this is going to be a meaningful exercise about real reform, really cleaning things up, getting serious, not protecting sacred cows, then let's get real about it.

One way we get real about it is closing this Indian tribe loophole which clearly exists and has no legitimate justification. I urge all Senators to vote against the motion to table because, again, this goes to the heart of the Abramoff matter. We need to properly regulate those campaign contributions in the same way as we do other entities, corporations, labor unions, and the like.

With that, I appreciate the deference in allowing me to speak to this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. President, I urge Senators to vote against this motion to table. Unfortunately, this opportunity to increase a Member's family income has been used and abused, and it tarnishes the entire body. It is one factor that has helped erode public confidence in the Congress.

If there was a way to truly police present law, I would say fine, but the fact is, there clearly is not and there is no way to know if services are being rendered and if a proper amount is being paid. So it is and will remain, if this amendment is tabled, a clear conduit of abuse of which some Members--I am not saying many or most, some Members--will take advantage. That will continue to hurt this institution and all of us who don't participate in that practice.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I have looked forward to joining this debate. I compliment those leaders who had the foresight to bring this very important issue to the floor of the Senate at the very beginning of this new Congress.

I worked with many Senators on both sides of the aisle last year. We had a bipartisan working group very focused on ethics and lobbying reform. We tried to push forward some bold, significant proposals.

In the end, I was rather disappointed, quite frankly, with the final product as it left the Senate floor. But I am very hopeful that we will produce a stronger, bolder final product now in this new Senate this month, particularly having listened to the voters and their very clear statements on the issue in the last election.

amendment no. 5 to amendment no. 3

Madam President, in that regard, I will send up three amendments to the desk and I ask that they be considered. I call up the first of those three amendments and I will explain it. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside for that purpose.

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

Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It attacks what is a very significant loophole in current campaign finance law, and that is a big and gaping loophole with regard to Indian tribes. As you know, under Federal campaign finance law, entities such as corporations, labor unions, et cetera, can participate in the Federal political process, but they need to do that, in terms of contributions and finances, through PACs, through political action committees. That is not true with regard to Indian tribes. Indian tribes, unlike every other entity, unlike corporations, unlike labor unions, unlike every entity under the Sun, can give money directly from their tribal revenues--including, of course, their biggest source of revenue right now, which is gambling revenue. So they can take that significant

source of money and use that directly, through the leadership vote of the tribe, to give money to political candidates.

In addition, there is another part of this big loophole, and that is that some of the cumulative giving limits that apply to every other entity out there--corporations, labor unions, et cetera--do not apply to Indian tribes. Again, this is a very glaring loophole under present Federal campaign finance law. I do not think there is any good rationale or argument under the Sun to retain it.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to take a good, hard look at this and vote for and support this very simple amendment which simply closes that loophole.

We may have some Member stand on the Senate floor and say: It may be a good idea, but we need to put it off. We are going to look at campaign finance later. We need to talk about this later in a different context.

I strongly disagree. When we think about the events of the last year, when we think about the debate, the national concern about corruption and cronyism, certainly there are big stories having to do with Indian tribes at the center of this. Some of the worst abusers of those situations were not the tribal members nor the tribal leadership themselves, but certainly it involved Indian tribes, and certainly the enormous amount of money available to the tribes because of gambling revenue was at the heart of those very bad situations.

I think we need to address this now. We need to hit it dead on. It is very much part of the stories and concerns we have heard about over the last year or two. Again, this is very simple, straightforward and very fair--which is to treat Indian tribes exactly as we treat other entities, such as corporations, such as labor unions, et cetera. Certainly allow them to participate in the political process, certainly allow them to fully support candidates of their choice but make them do that through setting up PACs, not simply allow them to spend their gambling revenue or other proceeds directly and in many cases without some of the overall limits that apply to other entities such as corporations.

With that, I will be happy to answer any questions or participate in any debate on the floor. I, also, have two other amendments at the desk. Whenever it is in order, I ask to call up those so we may discuss those as well.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up my second amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, this is a second amendment of a package of amendments I am presenting to the full Senate. As I did with the first amendment, what I would like to do--and I have had discussions with the Chair and ranking member, the participants who are leading the floor debate--is I will briefly explain this amendment. I will certainly be happy to engage in a fuller debate at a later time and have a full vote on this amendment, as with the previous one, at a later time, hopefully, in the next few days.

This amendment, also, directly addresses a situation that has clearly arisen and clearly caused great concern among the American people in the last couple of years. That is family members of Members of Congress, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, making money-- being paid, in some cases, very large amounts of money--while being employed by that candidate's PAC. Under present law, it is perfectly legal. It certainly doesn't pass the ``smell'' test in the hearts and minds of many Americans, but it is perfectly legal for a Member's campaign to hire a family member, a spouse, a child, any close family member--to help take care of the business of that PAC and be compensated for it, in some cases, with very significant salaries.

Let me say at the outset, I believe there are ways that could be done properly and ethically. The problem is, as is the case in so many of these questions, that there are also many ways where it can be and is and has been abused, so it basically puts a family member on the payroll of an entity that the Member of the House or the Senate controls. There is no real governing entity that polices the situation. No one knows whether that person shows up for work or for how many hours or how significant that work is. At the end of the day, through that family member, the family enjoys a significant additional income because that Member of the House or Senate is in politics and controls that PAC.

Again, this is not a theoretical problem yet to happen. This is not a solution waiting for a problem. This has been done in real life. This has clearly been abused in the past. It has clearly been a conduit for Members to gain family income through entities they control. I think, because of that abuse, because of the real erosion of public confidence we have seen in Congress because of abuses such as this over the last several years, there is only one sure and clean way to solve the problem and that is to simply have a bright-line test and say: Immediate family members can't get paid by the Member's PAC. We are not going to allow that. You have to hire a nonfamily member for these administrative roles so that no one can abuse the situation and put an immediate family member on the payroll, often at a very significant salary.

Again, my amendment is very simple. It says no immediate family member can be hired by the candidate's campaign or leadership PAC, and it defines immediate family member the same way section 110 of last year's Senate-passed bill defined that term, and that is son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother or stepsister or spouse. It is straightforward, a bright- line rule. To me it is very clear that is the only way we are going to stop this abuse that has occurred in the past and rebuild the confidence of the American people.

Amendment No. 7 to Amendment No. 3

With that, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside that amendment and call up my third amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, this third amendment is also very clear and straightforward. It increases the penalties significantly in cases in which there is not just a mistake on a financial disclosure form but a knowing and willful and purposeful attempt to hide information that the Member knows is supposed to be made public under the law. It increases those penalties on the civil side, and it, also, under the appropriate circumstances, creates criminal penalties for that.

Again, I think this goes to the heart of the erosion of public confidence because of lobbyists and ethics lapses and abuses over the last several years which have clearly involved Members of Congress. Some are in jail now as we speak because of those abuses.

This is a very clear and necessary way to remedy those past abuses and that erosion of public confidence. I think it is very important that these penalties are serious on the civil side and on the criminal side but that they only apply to cases where there is knowing and willful misrepresentation, where there is an active and a clear attempt to hide facts, to not comply with the law. Clerical or other mistakes don't cut it. That is not worthy of these very serious civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. But a knowing and willful misrepresentation, an active attempt to hide facts from the public that the law clearly mandates be made public, that is a different story. We need a zero tolerance policy for that.

Again, my amendment increases those penalties on the civil side and on the criminal side, and I urge all the Members of the Senate to support this very important amendment to rebuild that credibility of this body and of the House.

In closing, let me say, again, I welcome this activity on the Senate floor. I welcome this debate. I compliment Majority Leader Reid and all others who made this decision to put this issue front and center, first, on the Senate floor in the new Senate. I am eager to pass a strong, responsible bill to restore, to build up over time--it will not happen overnight--the confidence of the American people in our institutions.

Since I first came to the Senate, I have worked with various Senators, including a bipartisan working group on these issues, on these proposals last year. But I don't think we went far enough last year. Clearly, we didn't pass a bill through the entire process. But even the bill we passed through the Senate I don't think was strong enough. It did not address some of these crucial areas, including the Indian tribal campaign finance loophole, including the area of abuse where candidates and Members can put family members on the PAC campaign payroll, including making sure we increase civil and criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations.

My amendments will do this, and I urge all of my colleagues to take a good, hard look at them. Tomorrow, I will be introducing two, possibly three, other amendments, and I look forward to debating those as well. I appreciate the helpfulness of the managers. I look forward to coming back to these amendments to call them up for full debate and vote.

I yield my remaining time.

Madam President, I rise today to speak against the cloture motion to confirm Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as Commissioner of the FDA. I have had a public hold on this nomination and have been very upfront about it. Because my serious concerns have not been addressed in any significant way, I will vote against cloture. If cloture is invoked, I will vote against the nomination.

In doing so, I want to be clear I have nothing against Dr. Von Eschenbach's technical credentials or professional experience. They are very impressive in many ways. I strongly object to this nomination because the FDA and Dr. Von Eschenbach, acting on orders from the administration, has had a complete and utter lack of action creating a reasonable, safe system for reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

Clearly, this nomination making him the permanent head of the FDA will only further delay that reasonable implementation of a good, safe reimportation policy. In fact, at my extensive meeting with Dr. Von Eschenbach, my discussion with him made that perfectly clear. I give him credit, I suppose, for being very direct about that, although I am not sure he fully understood my serious interest in reimportation. It is for this reason I will vote against cloture. If cloture is invoked, I will vote against the nomination.

The FDA is completely capable of setting up a reimportation system, one that is safe and effective. The FDA can do this. It is not a matter of technical ability. We have great technical and other resources in this country. It is a matter of political will. At any time, the FDA could act and set up this safe and reasonable system.

My hold on this nomination, as I said, was very public, upfront, and clear. I made it clear I would lift it, contingent on a very simple request to implement some sort of prescription drug reimportation plan--perhaps beginning with personal reimportation from Canada, including Internet and mail order sales. The FDA could do this. It is fully capable of doing this. It has the know-how to do this. It simply will not because of lack of political will.

The need for this is very obvious to me. Every time I talk to consumers in Louisiana, particularly seniors, it becomes more and more obvious. As obvious and as important is the growing support for this-- not just out in the country where that support has always been strong but in the Congress, in the Senate, in the House.

The House passed comprehensive drug reimportation language in 2003. It passed it by an overwhelming majority. More recently, the Senate passed my amendment coauthored by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida by a vote of 68 to 32. That was this past July. That was a significant breakthrough because it was the first time we had a meaningful, straight up-or-down vote on a reimportation issue in the Senate. Again, the vote was clear. It was overwhelming. That important amendment passed 68 to 32.

All this shows that the majority of Americans strongly support allowing all Americans to purchase safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Yet the administration absolutely refuses to budge. Not only does the administration refuse to budge, it even went so far as to quietly implement a new policy last year at U.S. Customs and Border Protection to go after individual American citizens crossing back into the United States from other countries--mostly Canada--with medicine, actually seizing their packages containing legal medication at those border checkpoints. That is a very high-handed policy, when these citizens are doing nothing but trying to get absolutely necessary prescription drugs at a reasonable cost.

Coupled with the FDA and the administration's stubborn reluctance to implement even the most modern program, this has led me to conclude that no change would be made with the confirmation of this nominee.

Again, this is an issue of utmost importance to every American family and, of course, it particularly impacts seniors. I talk to affected families and affected seniors in Louisiana about this all the time. They tell me, at a time when pharmaceutical companies are making record profits, the costs of prescription drugs are still skyrocketing and the very same medicines usually manufactured by the very same companies are sold at a fraction of the costs a few miles north of the border in Canada or in other countries around the world. Louisianians see that and they are very skeptical. They should be. I share that attitude. I share that skepticism.

Opposing the right of an American to buy prescription drugs, FDA- approved medication they intend to use for themselves, is a wrong policy. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs in America. Our prices subsidize not only rockbottom prices in almost every other country but also sky-high and escalating profits of the pharmaceutical companies. That is not fair. That should not be allowed to continue. That is why we need to pass this important policy of reimportation.

Many of my colleagues have spoken about this significant issue in the Senate.

In September, my colleague from Michigan spoke of her bus trips with her constituents to Canada where they were able to buy safe, FDA- approved drugs at a fraction of the U.S. cost: Lipitor, a very important cholesterol-lowering drug, for 40 percent less; Prevacid, an ulcer medication, for 50 percent less; antidepression medications such as Zyprexa for 70 percent less.

In June, my colleague from North Dakota spoke eloquently about the need to allow the reimportation of safe drugs as a way to pressure U.S. pharmaceutical companies to lower prices here. That is the key, not just offering this option of cheaper drugs from another source but breaking up the present system that allows companies to charge dramatically different prices for the same drug around the world. And, of course, the highest prices in the world by far are right here in the United States. That system will not be able to withstand reimportation. That system will fall with reimportation.

So that is why I continue this fight. That is why it is so important. Although certainly this nominee may very well be confirmed by the Senate today, I am very optimistic that, as we make progress on this issue, we march to a very certain victory, probably next year, on the issue.

Again, we have been making steady progress. My amendment this past summer--the first vote on the floor of the Senate--was a breakthrough vote that showed overwhelming support here on the floor of the Senate for reimportation. Previous House votes, similarly, showed not just majority support, overwhelming support for this change in policy. Just recently, I again joined with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to put up another important amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that would go a step further. We will continue to pursue that. Then, next year, I fully expect a full-blown reimportation plan to be here on the floor of the Senate for a full debate and a fair vote.

So as I oppose cloture, as I oppose this nomination, I do so in that spirit and with real optimism that we are not only making progress, but we will, in fact, win on this issue in the near future. Next year, I expect my bill to be fully debated. In this Congress, that bill is S. 109, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. I believe it will reach the floor and will get a full debate with other significant bills on the issue next year.

I look forward to that continued progress. I look forward to that ultimate victory because Americans, particularly seniors, all across our country, including in Louisiana, need this very important relief. We can give them this relief in a safe, reliable way to dramatically bring down prescription drug prices.

With that, I yield back the floor.

Will the Senator yield very briefly?

Just very briefly, first of all, I appreciate your kind comments. Very briefly, my comments regarding his and FDA's ability to move forward on this is based on current law, including the Medicare Modernization Act, which says that if they institute a safety regime and certify the safety of these drugs, they can, in fact, move forward with the reimportation regime.

So under present law, that is possible, and that is what I was referring to. But I respect the Senator's point of view.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues' indulgence to speak on another very important topic, another amendment filed under this bill. And the topic is sky-high prescription drug prices and the ability to temper those prices, to bring them down, to some significant extent, through what is called reimportation, allowing all American consumers a fair, safe opportunity to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other countries.

I filed this amendment, amendment No. 5151, on this Agriculture appropriations bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. I thank him for all of his work and support on this amendment and on this issue.

This follows up on work earlier this year, when we successfully passed an amendment on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. That was a breakthrough vote, particularly on the floor of the Senate, to allow Americans greater access to those safe prescription drugs from Canada at much more reasonable prices.

Our amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill would go a little further still and expand those opportunities for Americans to buy safe, yet affordable, prescription drugs through reimportation from Canada.

First, let me step back and speak about the need for this in general because there is a significant need. At a time when pharmaceutical companies are making record profits, the cost of prescription drugs-- many of which are necessary to keep seniors and other Americans healthy or sometimes, in fact, alive--is skyrocketing. And these are the very same medicines that are sold at a fraction of the U.S. cost a few miles north of our border in Canada.

With all that going on--again, in the context of sky-high, record pharmaceutical company profits--Americans are deeply skeptical. I am here to say that Americans should be.

Opposing the right of an American to buy a small amount of prescription drugs--approved medication they intend to use for themselves--does not make sense to the average American. Yet that is still, to a large extent, our policy.

Many of my colleagues have spoken passionately on this floor, the floor of the Senate, about their own neighbors' stories, about how folks in their States have had to go to cheaper markets, such as Canada, to afford their prescriptions.

In September, my colleague from Michigan spoke of her bus trips with her constituents up to Canada to get these more affordable medicines. She traveled there by bus with her constituents, and they were able to get safe, FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost in the United States. She told us about her constituents who were able to buy the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor for about 40 percent less than the U.S. price, the ulcer medication Prevacid at 50 percent less, and antidepressants such as Zyprexa at 70 percent less.

In June, another colleague from North Dakota spoke eloquently of the need to allow reimportation of safe drugs as a way to pressure U.S. pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these very same drugs--our companies are the source of the same drugs--to lower prices in the United States.

I have spoken over and over again about my neighbors in Louisiana, their struggles, in many cases, to afford these lifesaving and life- sustaining drugs, being torn by various needs--to pay the rent, the food bill, the gasoline bill, energy costs--and yet have to pay sky- high pharmaceutical costs. Clearly, one part of the solution is reimportation, allowing all Americans to buy safe prescription drugs from other countries such as Canada.

As I said, I am proud to be joined by Senator Nelson of Florida on this amendment. He joined me several months ago on a similar amendment which we offered to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It passed overwhelmingly with 72 votes, a strong consensus show of support on the Senate floor. That amendment was very simple. It said: We are no longer going to let the border security bureaucracy of the Federal Government use taxpayer money to take away those cheaper prescription drugs many Americans go into Canada to buy and bring back to their homes. We are going to let those Americans do that because that is fair and right. We were only talking about Canada. We were only talking about taking them back across the border in quantities that are for their personal use, not to go into business to be a middleman selling drugs to other consumers but for their personal use. That amendment not only passed by a strong vote in the Senate, but it remained in the bill through the entire process.

After a lot of fighting, a lot of discussion and argument and work on this crucial issue, we were able to retain an important version of that amendment in the final version of the Homeland

Security appropriations bill. President Bush signed it into law. Now we have made that important change that says Americans can go into Canada, buy those safe, cheaper prescription drugs for their personal use and bring them back without border security agents taking them away, confiscating them, and having them out the cost, trouble, and time of their trip.

Today Senator Nelson and I offer amendment No. 5151 to the Agriculture appropriations bill. Of course, that bill covers the FDA as well. This amendment builds upon our earlier work and our earlier success and applies that same policy to the Food and Drug Administration, which is another enforcement arm of the Government on this topic. Again, it is simple. We are simply saying: Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to confiscate those prescription drugs bought by Americans in Canada. Just as it should not be used to confiscate them at the border as Americans cross back across the border to their home country, so, too, that bureaucracy, those taxpayer dollars, should not be used to confiscate drugs when they come from mail order or Internet sales. That is exactly what our amendment is about--Canada only, personal use only, a thoroughly reasonable, straightforward provision to honor the American people and give them this limited yet reasonable and important mechanism to get cheaper prescription drugs from elsewhere.

I am very hopeful that either this week or in the near future this sort of provision will pass, particularly given the strong vote we had on the earlier Vitter-Nelson amendment. I am also hopeful that in the next Congress we will be able to pass a full-blown reimportation bill to allow broad-based reimportation of safe, cheaper prescription drugs into this country. That is needed by Americans, particularly seniors, across the land. It is a fair and reasonable approach. It is not a magic wand, not a silver bullet. It won't solve the challenge of very high prescription drug prices overnight or alone. But it can and will be an important and significant part of the solution.

I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Nelson of Florida and many others on this vitally important effort. I look forward to our work on this amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I look forward to our following up on the success we had with our amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Most of all, I look forward to passing a broad-based reimportation bill early in the next Congress to give Americans what they deserve-- the opportunity, the freedom to buy safe, cheaper prescription drugs from other sources, Canada, other countries, including by mail order and the Internet. This will give Americans access to cheaper drugs. Perhaps even more importantly, it will break down that system that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge dramatically different prices in other countries versus ours. Of course, we pay the highest prices by far.

I look forward to that continuing work. I look forward to those victories, because the American people are waiting for it, counting it, depending on it. We can do this with major safety provisions built in to make sure these drugs are safe and reliable, as advertised.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the critical need we have in this country for broadband deployment. We are currently ranked 12th in the world in broadband deployment, and we must improve on this meager standing to be competitive in the world market.

The telecom reform legislation that has been reported by the Senate Commerce Committee is the right step in encouraging more broadband. I applaud Chairman Stevens and the rest of the committee for reporting this important bill. We need to end bureaucratic regulation on the video and broadband markets so that more competition will come to the marketplace. Americans deserve to have choices in who provides their telephone service, their cable service, and their broadband internet service. We have the opportunity to get this done for our constituents, and I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 5252, The Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006, expeditiously.

Telecom reform has hit the national stage, and I was proud to support the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006 when the Commerce Committee carefully considered the legislation. Our committee voted on this bill over 10 weeks ago, so it's time for the Senate to act. This is our chance to get it right on telecom reform and save cable consumers money on their bills. Despite the hard work of the Commerce Committee, some of our colleagues are holding up this important bill. I believe it is past time to bring this bill to the floor for a debate and a vote.

This legislation will usher video competition into communities across the U.S., and it will catapult rural areas into the 21st century digital era. By setting national franchise standards, negotiations between video service providers and local authorities will change from a years-long struggle to a maximum of 90 days. Accelerating the entrance of new companies into our communities will increase television choices, which ultimately lead providers to lower their rates and improve their service.

By doing away with the unnecessarily long local franchise process, current and new companies can quickly reach rural communities, where we need it most. Small companies that can't possibly break through the existing red tape will be able to quickly roll out quality service to cable- and high-speed-deprived areas. At the same time, larger companies will have opportunities to increase their investment and build better services to reach even more customers. This is a win-win situation for my State and the country.

Also, this bill has numerous other critical components--one of which being the assistance it provides to our Nation's first responders. The First Responder Coalition, a group consisting of tens of thousands of concerned citizens and first responders, strongly supports this legislation as it delivers key assistance for interoperability. ``Interoperability'' is a term that refers to local, State, and Federal agencies being able to communicate effectively during the time of a crisis. This legislation will allocate up to $1 billion in much-needed funds to first responders specifically for interoperable communications, and my amendment adopted in committee will speed up the delivery of that important funding. As we witnessed in last year's devastating hurricane season, local governments need dedicated and easily accessible technology so they can communicate with each other, as well as State and Federal authorities in the event of similar circumstances that require critical early responses. In Louisiana, nothing could be more important for us.

I am asking us today to heed the call for the entire country deserving for the great benefits of this bill. We have an opportunity to get the job done right--once and for all--for America's consumers. We need choices in television providers, more broadband deployment, vital interoperability funding, and more technology to rural areas. The Advanced Telecommunications Opportunity Reform Act of 2006 is the right next step for us.

Mr. President, today I acknowledge the Creative Planters Garden Club of Louisiana. After the catastrophic destruction of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this organization has dedicated itself to rebuilding the horticulture in Louisiana, and I would like to take a few moments to highlight their efforts.

Unfortunately, like many other citizens in south Louisiana, several members of this organization lost their homes to the hurricanes that ravished our State in 2005. While many members of the Creative Planters Garden Club are rebuilding their livelihoods, they are also volunteering their time to rebuild their State. Their priorities include replacing landscape projects devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and replanting the rose garden in New Orleans Botanical Gardens in City Park. It is community involvement like this that enriches our State.

For more than 23 years the Creative Planters Garden Club has worked to enhance Louisiana communities by promoting civic stewardship and horticulture education. They have worked in conjunction with many State and local government agencies to teach and encourage gardening to children.

I applaud the members of the Creative Planters Garden Club of Louisiana for their continued service to the citizens of their community.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the Fort Miro Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Monroe, LA. Beginning September 17 and ending September 23, this great organization will observe its annual Constitution Week. Today, I'd like to spend a few moments highlighting the importance of their efforts.

The Daughters of the American Revolution petitioned Congress in 1955 to set aside a week to celebrate the Constitution. Thanks to their petition, Congress through a joint resolution on August 2, 1956, requested that the president declare September 17 to 23 as Constitution Week.

This week sets out to emphasize citizens' responsibilities for protecting and defending the Constitution, inform people that the Constitution is the basis for America's great heritage, and encourage the study of the historical events surrounding its framing in September 1787.

This year on September 17 at 3:00 pm, this long-time chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution will participate in ``Bells Across America'' to commemorate the signing of the Constitution and to recognize all citizens of the United States of America.

I applaud the Daughters of the American Revolution for their continued dedication to celebrating the importance of the Constitution through education and activism. Moreover, I commend the Fort Miro Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Monroe, LA, for doing this fine work on behalf of the State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, I rise to strongly support S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and I also rise to put its provisions in perspective and to dispel some of the myths and simple inaccuracies that, unfortunately, have been propagated in many places, including on the Senate floor.

It is important to understand what this important Energy bill does because it does do significant and important things, and it is also important to understand what this bill does not do because it does not do several things that opponents have claimed. So let's go down these two simple lists.

This Energy Security Act does many important things. It brings new sources of domestic energy to the market over the next few years. All of us should agree that is a very important and necessary component of securing our energy future--not the only component, not the only thing we must do but a very important component of what we must do.

This bill generates new revenue for the U.S. Treasury. There has been enormous misinformation about that. There have been claims that the producing States are somehow raiding the Federal Treasury. What the States are doing is producing more Federal revenue for the Federal Treasury. If that is a raid, let the raids begin, and we will soon erase the deficit.

This bill promotes parity with nearly 90 years of onshore energy production policy by recognizing the importance of reinvesting in our offshore energy-producing areas to ensure the sustainability and liability of domestic energy production and independence.

For decades and decades, producing States onshore, on Federal land, have shared 50 percent of the royalty produced on those Federal lands. This begins to achieve some parity with that by allowing coastal producing States 37.5 percent.

This provides dedicated revenue streams for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That fund makes grants available to all of our States for 50 percent of the costs of parks, soccer fields, and other recreational opportunities.

This fully complies with the budget resolution we passed last year and the reserve fund amendment I included in the Senate's budget resolution this year, and it all reduces America's dependence on volatile foreign energy sources.

Those are all very important goals. Those are all goals achieved by this bill.

Just as importantly, there are many things this bill does not do which opponents have confused in the debate.

This bill does not in any way affect offshore California, the west coast, the Northeast, or anywhere on the east coast. This bill is focused on the Gulf of Mexico and has the support of the Senators from all of those Gulf Coast States.

This bill does not change offshore policy in any area other than the Gulf of Mexico, which today provides up to 30 percent of our energy.

This bill does not raid the Federal Treasury of funds from current revenue streams. It does not increase the deficit. As I said, what this bill does is the opposite. It allows production activity which would not occur otherwise. What does that mean? That means increased Federal revenue--$1 billion toward deficit reduction--not decreased Federal revenue.

This bill does not provide funds for the expansion of Federal land acquisition programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

I find, quite frankly, the opposition to this bill enormously frustrating. So many of these same Members of the Senate--others in the broader debate--are some of the loudest voices about high, increasing energy prices, oil prices at the pump, natural gas prices and what that does to our competitiveness. I agree with those concerns. Those are very legitimate concerns. Yet we bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that can absolutely have a short-term impact, a positive impact, bringing prices down, and, no, they have to oppose it. That is not good. That cannot be part of the solution.

The cost of natural gas has increased 400 percent over the last several years. Natural gas is a mostly continental commodity. Its importation through LNG is possible, but that alone cannot have enough of an impact to bring down prices the way we want to see them come down. So we need to produce more domestically. This bill will do that and help bring down natural gas prices.

Gasoline prices have increased from $1.28 in 1996 to over $3.60 in some areas of the country today. Of course, these surges were exacerbated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

These huge spikes don't impact us just at the gas pump or when we pay our heating and cooling bill. They affect us everywhere--at the grocery store, when we buy clothes, at the hardware store, the airlines when we go on trips, restaurants when they pay higher energy bills, and also in the job picture. When we decry jobs moving overseas, high natural gas prices in this country are a huge factor, particularly in select industries such as our chemical industry.

Yet, again, the folks who run to the floor of the Senate to beat on these issues and try to take advantage of them politically the most are among those who are opposing this bill. It makes no sense to me, and it is enormously frustrating to me.

They also seem to be opposed to this bill because they are just opposed on virtual religious grounds on more oil and gas production.

We need to do a lot of things to secure our energy future, and certainly that involves research and new technology and new forms of energy. But as we do that--and we are doing that, and we will do more, and we must do more--as we do that, the fact is, for the next several years and several decades we will have an economy in some ways dominated by oil and gas.

So if we want to give consumers relief, if we want to secure our energy independence in the short term, we also at the same time need to attack that side of the question, and this bill does that, domestically increasing our independence.

It is just completely irresponsible for people to say we can't address that side of the equation. We must, as we must address the longer-term side of the equation, with new technology, new sources of energy, new science and engineering. Those both have to be necessary components of a solution.

I would have a little more sympathy with some of these arguments if Senators from many of these other States,

not in the directly affected region in the gulf, were producing at least other forms of energy. They don't like oil? They don't like natural gas? There are other things folks in different parts of the country can do. There is nuclear. There is solar. There is windpower. The fact is, so many of the critics from these other places do not contribute to the Nation's energy needs in any of these categories.

The Department of Energy has some interesting statistics. State by State, what does a State consume in energy and what does it produce? California consumes eight times more energy than it produces. Massachusetts is the winner. It consumes 65 times more energy than it produces. Florida consumes 11 times more energy than it produces.

This is not being part of the solution. This is not sustainable. It is particularly ironic when some voices from these very same places decry a bill as we have on the floor which can be part of the solution, which can lower energy prices even in the short term and can get us to the longer term as we transition to new energy sources.

Finally, as I mentioned, there is a whole myth that many of these same opponents bring up that somehow we are raiding the Federal Treasury. If bringing in more Federal revenue is raiding the Federal Treasury, then let the raid begin. That is what this bill does. It increases Federal revenue--$1 billion more for the Federal Treasury, $1 billion more of deficit reduction. That is the plain and simple fact. Why is that? Because this bill expands production which expands revenue which, even in the new rules of revenue sharing under this bill, increases Federal revenue and decreases the deficit.

For any opponents to claim that this somehow increases the deficit and raids the Federal Treasury is simply untrue. It is factually incorrect. There is more Federal revenue, bringing down the deficit.

S. 3711 is positive. It is concrete, it is taking action now. It is a step forward. It can have an impact that can make life better for average Americans, even in the short term, and help bring down energy prices, help increase our energy independence, help produce new revenue, not just to the producing States; but also to the Federal Treasury--help reduce the Federal deficit.

This is a win-win-win-win, and I urge my colleagues to support this important energy legislation.

I yield the floor.