Floor Statements

Madam President, many years ago the Congress created the party institutes to do development work across the world, building democratic institutions from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa, to the Middle East. They have come such a long way in the time since they were created. Their workers serve in extremely tough and very dangerous situations and conditions. John McCain has been chairman of the International Republican Institute, and Madeleine Albright chairs the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. We appreciate so much the work and service both these institutes perform throughout the world in developing and creating democracies.

I am so sad to report that yesterday in Baghdad a convoy carrying a team of NDI employees was attacked and four NDI employees were killed, including one American. This tragedy is a reminder that we have sacrifices of all kinds being made on behalf of democracy across the world. The Nation mourns the losses that occur in Iraq on

a daily basis. Yesterday, 170 Iraqis were killed that we know of, 4 Americans. I haven't received the reports this morning on what happened last night. We also mourn for people like these gallant individuals, who were there trying to make the world a better place. Our thoughts go out to the families of these four individuals. Later today, their names will be spread across the Record of the U.S. Senate.

Madam President, on the Democratic side, we have six 10- minute speeches. I ask unanimous consent that each Democratic Senator have their full time and, of course, the Republicans would have their full 60 minutes when we complete ours.

Now I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be recognized, followed by Senator Gregg, if he is here, Senator Conrad, Senator Bennett, Senator Durbin, and me, in that order.

Madam President, how much time does the majority leader have in morning business?

Madam President, I ask that the time of the minority be extended. I will complete my remarks, if not in 5 minutes, shortly thereafter. But whatever time I expend, I ask that time be given to Republicans so they have a matching amount of time.

Madam President, I so appreciate the statements of my colleagues who traveled with me to South America. As has been indicated, Bolivia, if not the poorest country in this hemisphere, is the second poorest. You land in an airport, the highest airport in the world--13,400 feet. As my distinguished friend, the Senator from Utah, said, President Nixon said that people should travel, Members of Congress. I use as an example Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was an anti- Communist, and that is an understatement, but Ronald Reagan always spoke to his enemies. But for Ronald Reagan's insistence that there be bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union on a constant, frequent basis, I am not sure the Cold War would have ended. Not only did he personally meet with the Soviet leaders time after time, people working in his State Department were in constant contact with the Soviet Union.

Members of Congress should travel. There is no better example than these three countries to which we traveled. They are begging for the attention of the United States, and they are getting no attention. They are not begging for the attention of Venezuela and Cuba, but they are getting lots of attention. As a result of that, they have a significant amount of influence where the United States should be the one exerting the influence.

They want us to be involved. We should be involved. Ninety percent of the cocaine in the world comes from the Andean region. Shouldn't we be involved? But we are not. We set up programs to help them fight the illicit growing and production and transmission of illegal narcotics-- and we are cutting back on those moneys. They are limited amounts, anyway. These little democracies cannot afford to do this on their own. It is unpopular for them to do that. The President of Bolivia was the head of a union of coca farmers. He wants to fight the illicit drug trafficking, but he needs our help, as does the President of Ecuador. The most biodiverse nation in the world is Ecuador.

The President of Peru loves America. He was effusive in his praise for America. Why can't we help more?

I wish to mention a couple of things. First of all, the hidden heroes of our Government are our Foreign Service officers. I have been in Congress now going on 25 years. My first tour of duty was in the House of Representatives. I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and learned to travel at that time, and rightfully so. I traveled with great chairmen, such as Clem Zablocki from Wisconsin and Dante Fascell from Florida.

I have come to learn that our diplomats, our Foreign Service officers, are the cream of the crop. To become a Foreign Service officer, you have to be very smart and very interested in what goes on in the world. They are the best. They are wonderful people. Every place I go when I travel, I tell these Foreign Service officers something they don't hear very often: They are the difference between America having relations with these countries and not having them.

Ambassadors to these three countries are great human beings. Philip Goldberg in Bolivia--what a tremendous job he is doing, working day and night to improve relations between our country and Bolivia. In Ecuador is a distinguished woman who has a great diplomatic career. She has a smile that is contagious--Linda Jewell. She is doing great work for us in Ecuador; and in Peru, James Curtis Struble, a real professional. I have so much warmth for the work these people do. They go to the remote parts of the world. Every time I meet an ambassador, I say: Where have you been? And you should hear where they have been--the most

remote places in the world, starting off as a political officer, economic officer, places where they handle visas, and they work their way up through the ranks. These Ambassadors are similar to a four-star general. I think we only have 140 Ambassadors, and they are the best, the cream of the crop. If you see a person who has been appointed Ambassador through the career State Department offices, they are the best. They are all Americans. They are generals; they are admirals. I so admire the work they do.

Then, as Senator Durbin mentioned, every place I go, I talk to the Peace Corps volunteers. We only have, in the world, a little over 7,000 of them. We should have 70,000 Peace Corps volunteers. A woman from Reno, NV, traveled 20 hours to meet me in Ecuador, to have lunch with me in Ecuador. This is her tour of duty as a Peace Corps volunteer. One Peace Corps volunteer from Nevada has a master's degree in biology. She works in public health. Another Foreign Service officer from Nevada works with troubled youth. She showed me her pictures. Her father came to visit her. He lives in New York. He came to see her and where she lives, and when he saw her, he started crying. He said: I expected more than this for my daughter. After he left, after visiting his daughter, he cried with joy, recognizing what this woman does for mankind. That is what Peace Corps volunteers do.

This was a wonderful trip. We need to compete with Cuba and Venezuela in this part of the world and other parts of the world or we are going to lose these democracies.

I have to be very candid with you, Madam President. The snide remarks, the cute little things people write in newspapers about trips taken by Members of Congress, I resent them, and I think it does the American public a disservice. I am going to continue to travel in spite of what the newspapers say because I believe I am serving my country by doing that.

With America's attention focused on the Middle East, South America does not get the attention that it deserves, particularly the three countries we visited--Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru.

And when the world does focus on South America, it is with increased concern over the region's leftward turn, and the inflammatory rhetoric issued by several of the region's leaders criticizing our Government.

There is no doubt that there are serious problems in the region. There is also no question that the Bush administration has neglected the region, and its lack of a comprehensive policy has contributed to this current trend.

Venezuela and Cuba have been filling a vacuum, attempting to pull the region to the left.

But I do not think we should be deterred by this trend. We have much to gain through increased engagement with South America--and much to lose if we retreat from our obligations to the region. We can and must do more.

On our trip, we had productive meetings with the leaders of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. Most importantly, we came away from our visit with an appreciation for the people of these three important nations, and an awareness of the key issues confronting them.

Our first stop was Bolivia, where we had an amicable discussion with President Evo Morales. Much has been said about the somewhat difficult relationship the United States has encountered with President Morales, but we were able to set forth our concerns about increased coca production, the rule of law, and the periodic expressions of anti- Americanism. President Morales also laid out each of his grievances about the U.S. We did not always agree, but we had a very honest and open exchange, and that is what close relationships require.

I was also pleased to see the devoted engagement of our Ambassador Philip Goldberg and his diplomatic team in La Paz. Their insight will be particularly crucial in monitoring the current Bolivian constitutional crisis. We will have to watch these developments closely. We truly hope that whatever happens, Bolivian democracy and Bolivian democratic institutions are strengthened, not weakened. That would be the right result for Bolivia, for the region, and for the relationship with the United States.

Then it was on to Ecuador, the most bio-diverse country in the world. From its snow capped peaks, to the Galapagos Islands, to the Amazon Rain Forest--Ecuador is an environmental treasure. My son spent 2 years there years ago, and to this day, still speaks of his days in Ecuador. After being there, I can understand why Ecuador made such an impact on him.

We were pleased that, although he had not even been sworn in yet, President Correa assembled his new cabinet to meet with our delegation. He seemed quite aware that Ecuador risks becoming a transit hub for narco-trafficking in the region, and vowed to take swift action to shut down the trafficking in and around Ecuador.

Ecuador is the home of the U.S. Forward Operating Location at Manta, which plays a key role in the multilateral approach to fighting the war on drugs. The mission at Manta advances the joint interest that the United States and Ecuador have in curbing the illegal flow of drugs. The American presence at Manta also contributes around $6.5 million a year to the local economy. We hope that this can be the start of a constructive dialogue on this issue, through which the Ecuadorian Government will come to realize the benefits yielded from the Forward Operating Location at Manta.

Peru, our final stop, must also contend with the problem of drug trafficking. But Peru's President, Alan Garcia, is a leader committed to meeting this challenge. We had such a good meeting with President Garcia, a pro-democracy, pro-capitalist and pro-American leader. I am very grateful for the graciousness he showed to our delegation.

President Garcia possesses a keen understanding of the dynamic of the region today, and desires to work together to combat the leftist ideology being promoted by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. He noted that, with Castro's possible passing, the U.S. has an opportunity to reengage in the region, and reach out to a new generation looking at the United States as a model for freedom, democracy and opportunity.

Going forward, we must remember that the U.S. and South America will continue to have its ups and downs. But all relationships do. The six of us took this trip because we know that existing relationships must be cultivated and tended to in order to keep them healthy and strong.

There is so much more we can do here at home. Our delegation intends to meet with the Secretary of State in the coming weeks to relay to her the small things the U.S. Government do to improve our position in the region. For example, I believe: we should be doing more with IMET assistance, which in addition to the training program, proves so valuable to developing longstanding relationships between military officers the United States and the IMET beneficiary; we need to increase the USAID budgets for these nations. We learned that Ecuador's aid budget will be cut considerably, from $35 million to under $20 million, and I believe that is a mistake. One thing we learned is how far a few U.S. dollars can go; and we also need to do more to support micro-lending and the counter-drug efforts of the Andean region, in order to keep cocaine off the streets of the United States. I was disturbed to learn that the State Department is contemplating significant cuts to the Andean Counter-drug Program. That, too, would be a serious mistake, and I plan on raising the issue with the Secretary of State.

Finally, I think it is important to extend the trade preferences for Ecuador and Bolivia. I also know that Peru is eager to get its Free Trade Agreement finalized, and this is something that Congress needs to address in the coming year.

Through increased trade, more robust aid and exchange programs, and stronger diplomacy to this region, the United States can help lift many people out of poverty, improve economic conditions, which would have a significant impact on illegal immigration to the United States. We would also help counteract the region's shift to the left. In short, the people of this region want stronger ties with the United States, and that is what we should aim to deliver.

The Andean region is not lost to us; its challenges provide us with an opportunity which we must seize. With more sustained engagement, we can win it back again.

I thank my colleagues for joining me on the floor to talk about this important issue today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be closed.

Mr. President, first of all, I apologize to everybody for having Senators wait around. I can remember when I was in the House, and in the interest of coming to the Senate, I turned on the TV set. Jim Exon from Nebraska kept suggesting the absence of a quorum. I was so upset not knowing what the procedure was. But I came and served with Jim Exon--first of all, he was as big as the Presiding Officer, and he was a man who was very dedicated to the Senate. But after I got here, I understood more what was happening. So I apologize for all the quorum calls. A lot of people think nothing is going on, but Democrats and Republicans and staff have been working so hard from last night to today to get us to this point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments to the amendment No. 3 be withdrawn and that the following be the only amendments remaining in order to the bill or substitute amendment; that the votes in relation to the amendments begin at 8:10 this evening, with 2 minutes for debate equally divided between each vote; that upon disposition of the above-listed amendments, the substitute amendment No. 3 be agreed to as amended, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate vote, without any intervening action or debate, on final passage of the bill.

Yes, I will.

True.

That is my understanding. The Senator absolutely has that right.

It may not be the first, but we have an agreement that it would be following my recognition, the offering of the substitute, and the minority leader, who would be recognized.

Mr. President, before the Republican leader says anything, I will be brief. We have been able, if this agreement is reached, to accomplish what the distinguished Republican leader and I intended to do this week. As a result of that and an agreement to go forward on the minimum wage, there will be no votes tomorrow or Monday.

Mr. President, has the agreement been accepted?

Mr. President, in that we are not voting until 8:10, I will say a few words. Let me say this. This legislation has been extremely difficult to deal with. It is difficult because it directly affects our lives, Members of the Senate. In the short term, this is going

to be difficult because we are going to have to get used to the provisions in this piece of legislation. But in the long term, we will all be thankful these steps have been taken. This legislation will remove even the appearance of impropriety from the work done in this Chamber.

This is not a time for declaring victory. Legislation is the art of compromise, the art of consensus building. There has been a victor in all of this when this matter is completed and that is the American people. I am not a victor, I am not a loser. Senator McConnell is not a victor or a loser. We have worked through this in the way that legislators should work through difficult pieces of legislation. I believe last November Americans, through their votes, asked us to make Government honest. We have done that. We are going to give them what I believe is a Government they deserve.

I am satisfied that this debate has been good for this body. Now we are going to move forward, recognizing the last 24 hours has not been easy legislatively. As Senator Durbin said last night, it was a bump in the road. It was a real bump and people should have had their seatbelts on because it was a difficult bump. But I believe last night there were people looking for an excuse to not move this bill forward. Let me say, underlying and underscoring this, as I said last night--and I will say it again--Senator Judd Gregg, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, is a person who has tremendously strong principles. He believes in this legislation. I believe just as strongly that it is wrong. But he believes it is right. I admire and respect him for doing that, just as his partner on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, is a person of principle. They have worked on this issue and other issues together, as legislators should work together. I so much respect the way they work together. They disagree on a number of different issues, but they do it in a way that I think brings dignity to this body.

I, also, wish to say one thing about my friend, Senator Russ Feingold. He has been a pioneer on a number of different legislative issues. He fought tooth and nail with my friend, the Republican leader, on campaign finance reform. It was a debate that went on for a number of years in this body. Senator Feingold is a person who has talked about ethics since he came to the Senate. There are a lot of people responsible for this legislation, but there is no one more responsible than the Senator from Wisconsin.

He has been a pioneer, and he has not let up from the time he came to the Senate to today in moving forward on what he believes is good for this body politic. With rare exception, I agree with him. He is my friend. He is a person for whom I have great admiration based on his, if nothing else--and there is plenty more--being a Rhodes Scholar, a Harvard graduate with honors, a man who was a dignified and successful lawyer before he came to the Senate. He has shown he is a good legislator. So I have great respect for him.

In the past, I called this legislation the toughest reform since Watergate. That is an understatement. This is the toughest reform bill in the history of this body as it relates to ethics and lawmaking. So everyone tonight, when they vote on this bill, should vote proudly. What is going to happen soon is historic: requiring new lobbying disclosure, banning all gifts, reforming earmarks, requiring Senators to pay charter rates on corporate jets. We will restore the confidence of our citizenry in the Government.

I so appreciate the work that has been done on this legislation. I appreciate the work of my friend, the Republican leader. We have had disagreements on this legislation, but we have an agreement in principle as to what this body is all about. I look forward to working together on more bipartisan legislation. This is bipartisan legislation sponsored by the Democratic leader and the Republican leader of the Senate.

Mr. President, I failed to acknowledge the managers of this bill. I apologize to both of them. They have been masterful in working this bill the last 2 weeks. The two managers are going to be involved heavily in getting this through conference. I have so much respect for both of them. They are outstanding Senators.

I repeat, I am so sorry I didn't acknowledge them. I should have done that in the beginning because they have done more than anybody else in moving this bill forward. They worked as partners moving this bill forward. It has been a difficult partnership because of the different thoughts on different sides of the aisle as to what is good and bad. They have been able to be dignified in what they have done. I appreciate it.

Amendment No. 20

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, for the information of all Senators, we will have a vote Tuesday morning--well, at least by noon Tuesday. No votes Friday or Monday, but we will vote Tuesday at noon or thereabouts.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 108, the Psychologists in the Service of the Public Act of 2007, be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, it is my understanding that H.R. 6 has been received from the House and is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I object to the second reading.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. Monday, January 22; that on Monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that at 2 p.m. the Senate begin consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage increase bill, as provided for under a previous agreement.

Madam President, I have already announced that there will be

no rollcall votes on Monday or tomorrow. Of course, we are not going to be in session tomorrow.

Tuesday, I expect that we will vote prior to the recess for the caucus luncheons.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, the first half controlled by the Republicans, the second half under the majority's control. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the ethics bill, S. 1. Last night, the Senate invoked cloture on an amendment strengthening the gift and travel restrictions. I understand that several second-degree amendments to the amendment are now pending. It is my understanding there are four. I anticipate that we will be in a position to dispose of any germane second-degree amendments later today and then we will dispose of the underlying amendment. Once the Senate has concluded action on the gift travel amendment and any amendments in relation thereto, there will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment on which cloture was filed last Friday.

I said yesterday, and I say today, we are going to work through this bill as quickly as we can. We were able to get through the first part of the ethics legislation in good fashion. It is my understanding, once we move to the substitute, if cloture is invoked on that, there are about 24 amendments that are germane as of last night. There were a few other amendments filed. I don't know if they are germane. I have been told by staff that 30, 40 percent of those amendments Senators Bennett and Feinstein will agree to accept. The others we will take a look at and see if they are campaign finance related and try to work through them the best we can. I am also in contact with my distinguished colleague, the Republican leader, to see if he feels that there are other amendments we need to vote on, and we are working on that. Even if they are not germane, if the distinguished minority leader and I have some belief that they will help movement of this bill, I would be happy to work with him in that regard.

We are going to be in recess today for our respective party conferences from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. If we need to use the whole 30 hours, it would be about 10:30 tonight before we could dispose of the amendment--something like that.

Madam President, I have a question of my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania. It is my understanding he is going to speak next; is that right?

My only question was how long he is going to speak. I will come back after that time. I appreciate the Senator allowing me to ask that question.

Madam President, I have been in Government all my adult life. Until I came back here, all my jobs were part time, and I practiced law. I say as sincerely as I can to anyone within the sound of my voice, I am so disappointed in the conversation I had with my Republican counterpart, Senator McConnell, a few minutes ago. I was told that this ethics bill is not going to get the support of the Republicans. They are going to bring this bill down, defeat this bill.

Why? Listen to this. Because they are not going to have a vote on line-item veto. I told the distinguished Republican leader yesterday that we were willing to give the Republicans a vote on this prior to the Easter recess--up-or-down vote. We would have their bill, our bill, two competing votes, with 60 vote margins.

It is very clear what is going on with this bill. Keep in mind, Madam President, that we have had in Washington a culture of corruption. For the first time in 131 years, someone was indicted working in the White House. He is now in trial as we speak. The head of Government contracting appointed by the President, Mr. Safavian, is led from his office in handcuffs for sweetheart deals he had with Abramoff and others.

The majority leader of the House of Representatives was convicted three times of ethics violations in the House within 1 year. And then, of course, he was indicted in Texas on more than one occasion.

A House Member from California is in prison now as we speak for accepting more than $2 million in bribes.

A Congressman now is awaiting trial.

Staff members have been convicted of crimes from the House.

Talk about a culture of corruption, the American people deserve ethics and lobbying reform. That is why I brought to the floor S. 1. It is very clear that the minority does not want a bill. They have tried a number of different things to defeat this bill, offered all kinds of amendments, thinking we would oppose them. We supported those amendments. The only one that was a little blip in the road was a DeMint amendment, but we thought it should be stronger rather than weaker, so we added tax provisions to that. That has now passed.

Line-item veto has nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform-- nothing, zero. If the majority felt so strongly about line-item veto, which I am sure they do, I have agreed to give them a vote. This is a pretext. They could not kill the bill by offering amendments, thinking we would oppose them, so now they have come up with a new idea: We cannot do this because you will not give us a vote on a nongermane, nonrelevant amendment--line-item veto.

Line-item veto has nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform. If the line-item veto is so important to the minority, why didn't the Republicans get a vote on it last year when they controlled this Chamber? This is very difficult to comprehend.

The bill that is before the Senate was sponsored, for the first time in 30 years, by the two leaders. And then the substitute was sponsored by the two leaders. The two leaders agreed to bring this bill to the floor. Now they are going to bring down the bill that their leader cosponsored?

I will be happy to yield for a question.

They would not take it to conference. We never got it done.

Madam President, this bill is very strong. It is something the American people want. I say to my distinguished counterpart, and all the minority Senators, they are going to vote against cloture on this bill? We hear people say, in passing, here: Well, that is a 30-second spot. Voting against cloture on this is not a 30-second spot. It is a 30-minute spot.

This bill prohibits lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers and their staffs. It prohibits lobbyists from paying for trips or taking part in privately funded congressional travel. It requires public disclosure of earmarks. It slows the revolving door by extending to 2 years the ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress.

It makes pay-to-play schemes such as the K Street Project a violation of Senate rules. It makes lobbying more transparent by doubling the frequency of reporting and requiring a searchable electronic database.

It would require for the first time the disclosure of shadowy business coalitions that engage in so-called Astroturf lobbying campaigns. These big companies pay these people to come out and do grassroots stuff. You never know who is paying for it. Under this bill you would.

But even though we have under S. 1, as we introduced it, a lot of good things, it is even stronger because we offered a substitute amendment to make it even stronger. There are new protections to prevent dead-of-night additions to conference reports. We added new rules to say Members may not engage in job negotiations with the very industries they regulate.

There is fuller discloser by lobbyists. We ensure proper evaluation of tickets to sporting events. We make sure that Senate gift and travel rules are enforceable against lobbyists. And we toughen criminal penalties for corruption violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Since that was offered by me and the distinguished Republican leader, we have had a debate in the Senate that has strengthened the bill even more.

The Senate has adopted other amendments on a bipartisan basis: Senator Kerry's amendment to strip pensions from Members convicted of corruption; Senator Salazar's amendment to ensure public access to committee proceedings; and two amendments by Senator Vitter to strengthen enforcement of ethics rules. And I might add, there are other amendments out there waiting to be voted on if, in fact, cloture were invoked on the substitute.

Finally, we voted overwhelmingly to invoke cloture on an amendment to prevent the things that we did before

with airplanes. It strengthens the gift ban even further.

The underlying bill generally prohibits gifts from lobbyists. The amendment I offered broadens the gift ban to prevent gifts from companies and other entities that even hire or retain a lobbyist.

We did an excellent job, I repeat, on the travel. It is common sense. It broadens the provision by generally prohibiting congressional travel paid for by companies and other entities who hire or retain a lobbyist.

The amendment provides exceptions for 1-day participation at events-- speech, conference, convention--and for de minimis lobbyist involvement. It requires advanced approval by the Ethics Committee for all privately funded travel, pursuant to guidelines issued by the committee.

Madam President, I believe we have done yeoman's work. I think it is so unfortunate that I have been told that the minority would not support cloture. We will find out. We have a vote scheduled for 12:38 tonight. And if the minority desires, we will certainly agree to an earlier vote. But I have been told we will not get the additional 16 votes required. We need 66 votes on this--66 votes on this.

But I want the world to know that this bill is being brought down not on a matter of principle because there is no one in the Senate I have more respect and admiration for than the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Judd Gregg. He is a wonderful man, a fine person, and he believes in this line-item veto. I understand that. But I have told the Republican leader that my friend from New Hampshire or whoever else is interested in this issue can have a full debate on it. We will give them time to do it.

But this is not the place. This is not the place. This has nothing to do--we are going to vote. If cloture were invoked, we would vote on I think it is 16 germane amendments. Those are germane. This is not germane. It falls. This has nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform.

So I would hope that there would be another view taken of this. This bill is being brought down because people do not want to comply with ethics and lobbying reform. That is what it is all about. All the rest is game playing.

This is a tough bill. It would drastically change the way we do business in Washington for the better. The American public deserves this. I think they are going to demand this. And I think it is a sad day for the American people that this bill is going to be brought down. Because it will. We can only supply 50 votes. That is all we have. And we need 66.

The fallaciousness of this argument is astounding. Line- item veto, the last time it left this body, it went to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was argued before the Supreme Court, dealing with the separation of powers doctrine. Fifteen minutes dealing with the very fiber of our society, our constitutional requirement of separation of powers, the legislative, the executive, and judicial branches of Government? This has implications with the separation of powers between the administration, the White House, and this Congress. To think we could do this in 15 minutes is not fair. I have said, if we want to have a debate on this, I am willing to do that, but not on this bill. This is an effort to bring down this bill. To say that nongermane amendments come just like the sun comes up every day is not reasonable or rational or sound.

We have worked through this bill. We have worked on nongermane amendments, germane amendments, trying to work things out. We are now in a parliamentary structure where at 12:38 tonight, the Senate would dispose of the Reid amendment No. 4 and then vote to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. At that time, if cloture were invoked, we would have a number of amendments. As I indicated, I think there are 16 that would require votes because they are germane. My friend from New Hampshire can talk about having laid this amendment down 5 days ago or whenever he wants to say he laid it down. I don't know when he did. But the fact is, it is a nongermane amendment. It is not on this bill. It should not be on this bill.

I have told the distinguished Republican leader, if they want some time to do this, we will set other things aside and do it. But this is an attempt to bring down this bill. To think that you could do this in 15 minutes is absolutely unreasonable. Senator Levin, Senator Byrd, and others filed the case. It went before the U.S. Supreme Court the last time the line-item veto came before this body. Senator Byrd gave 10 hours of speeches on the line-item veto here on the Senate floor.

To think we could do this in 15 minutes--

I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. President, I direct, without my losing the floor, a question to the former chairman of the Budget Committee, someone who knows money as well as anybody in this body. Why couldn't we do this at a later time? I will give you whatever time you want that is reasonable. If you want to spend 2, 3, 4 days on this, I am happy to do that. We need time to prepare for this. This new in the session is not the time to do this. I wish to get this ethics bill done. I think I am being about as reasonable as I can be to set aside a significant amount of time prior to the Easter recess to give you an opportunity to do the line-item veto. And prior to that time, we could have a couple of hearings on this. I also recognize that we have a process in the Senate where bills can be amended. Sometimes they don't have to be relevant or germane. But I think you have to be in the ballpark.

We have a CR coming up. We have the supplemental coming up which is money matters that you could file this on. I think people would have trouble objecting to it procedurally being improper. But right now, this isn't the time to do it. We are talking about doing something to make this body and the House better places to look at from an ethics and morality standpoint. I think your forcing us to go forward on this, which we are not going to do, makes it very difficult. I say this without pointing at anyone in particular, Democrat or Republican. Anyone who votes against cloture is creating some real political problems for himself. I think the American people think that something should be done with this culture of corruption we have back here.

Yes, it was. Why can't we do this at a later time when you have all the time you need? I have told the distinguished Republican leader, we will have your amendment. We will have Carper or something like that. I am not sure Carper is what we want to go with but something like that, where we can debate it, have a good debate on it, have you and Senator Conrad leading the debate. Others will want to join in, Senator Byrd and Senator Levin who were plaintiffs in the case. And we can move forward on it. Why couldn't we do that it way?

You are talking about if we do this at another, subsequent time?

I am going to meet the distinguished Speaker of the House in 20 minutes. I will be happy to visit with her about that. I don't see why we couldn't have some assurance that it would go to conference. As you know, I believe in conferences. I think they should go forward. I would work very hard to get that done. I would say to my friend and those who can hear me that you can see through this a thousand miles. I am sure there are Senators who are overjoyed that this matter won't become law; I mean the ethics legislation. This matter, the line-item veto, is not a simple procedure, as my friend indicates. I repeat, it has very difficult constitutional problems, as indicated when the Supreme Court knocked it out last time. We can't debate this in a few minutes. I am willing to spend whatever time and give the Senator whatever assurances I can that we will try to move this on, move this beyond where we are here to conference.

I say this: There are people who are Democrats who have some degree of confidence in being able to do something that is a line-item veto. Senator Carper has something. You might not like what he has done. I am not an expert on what he has done, but he is

proud of it. Senator Conrad had some other ideas. We would agree on one. We would match it with yours. It would take us a few weeks to come up with that. But as I told the distinguished Republican leader, we will bring this up at a specific time, not a hit-or-miss time, prior to the recess we are going to have for Easter. I think that is reasonable.

I can give you this assurance: I will do everything I can to get this to conference. I have not discussed this with the distinguished Speaker or anyone over there, but I will be happy to work to see that that is done. As the distinguished Senator knows, I will work to get it to conference, but as we have learned--and if we get it to conference, it will be a public conference. It will be one where Democrats will be there and Republicans will be there from both the House and the Senate. But as you know, we have more votes than you have, so I can't guarantee what would happen in conference. But I will do everything I can to get it to conference.

I want the record to reflect that the Senator from New Hampshire offered this--and I said this in my remarks--because he believes in it. This is something he believes in. It was not offered by the Senator from New Hampshire to bring down the bill. But that is what is happening. I am sorry to say there are other Senators who see this as an opportunity to bring down the bill. I would hope we can work something out on this. I want to move forward on this legislation. I want the Senator from New Hampshire to move forward on his legislation.

As the Senator from New Hampshire knows, I don't agree with your legislation. But I will work, as I have indicated before to whoever is watching this Senate proceeding, to do everything I can to get a conference and have an open public conference. If we pass something here, of course.

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

Mr. President, to bring everyone up to date as to where we are, I made a good-faith offer to the minority that we will put the line-item veto off to another day. Senator Byrd was not agreeable to that. I talked to Senator Byrd on more than one occasion this evening, the last time for a significant amount of time, and he simply believes this line-item veto is a matter of great constitutional import, that for us to agree at this time to debate this would be wrong and that he simply will not do that.

Having said that, I still say I think it is a terribly unfortunate day for this Senate that a bipartisan piece of legislation dealing with ethics and lobbying reform that has been cosponsored for the first time in three decades as the first bill brought before the Senate by the two leaders, Democratic and Republican leader, is not going to be allowed to go forward based on the Republicans not being able to have a vote on a matter that is not germane or relevant to this legislation.

We have done so much with this legislation. We introduced the bill that passed this Senate last year by a vote of 98. We strengthened that significantly with the substitute. A number of amendments were offered by my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues. There are those who say that Senators thought those amendments would not be agreed to. They have been agreed to, with rare exception.

We have 15 or so amendments that would be postcloture germane on the substitute if cloture were invoked. We have agreed those amendments should go forward.

The point I am making is it is too bad that it appears this bill is not going to pass because of a line-item veto. That is what it is all about. Members can talk about things in here that may apply, and the Parliamentarian says it is not germane. To think we can dispose of this piece of legislation in a few minutes is not sensible. This is something that will take a lot of debate. Senator Conrad, alone, would take a number of hours. Senator Byrd would take a number of hours. Senator Levin, who is one of the plaintiffs taking this to the Supreme Court, would take a significant amount of time.

I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would reconsider. After what has gone on in Washington, in the courts alone, this requires our doing something. We, in good faith, have moved forward on this, playing by the Senate rules. I hope people of good will on the other side of the aisle vote to invoke cloture. If not, as I said earlier today, there is only one reason this bill is going to not pass. It is because the minority does not want it to pass, period, underscore, exclamation point.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lott amendments Nos. 78 and 79 be withdrawn, that at 9 o'clock p.m. tonight all time postcloture be yielded back, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following: Feingold amendment No. 65; Bennett amendment No. 81, as modified; Reid amendment No. 4, as amended, if amended; motion to invoke cloture on the Reid substitute amendment; provided further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote.

Mr. President, the unanimous consent request is agreed to; is that right?

Mr. President, what I want to say is, I do not want anyone to be disabused that the only problem we had with our conversations was the time. As I indicated, I thought it would be appropriate to have a time certain to do this, but there were other issues that became involved in this also about how we would get to conference and other matters that were somewhat complicating, which certainly I did not have an opportunity to even discuss with Senator Byrd. But there were other hurdles we had to jump through. So it is not just as simple as that.

The point is, it was not done. I think that is unfortunate. But the issue before this Senate tonight is whether we are going to move forward with the most significant lobbying and ethics reform, by a large margin, since Watergate. It would be historic legislation. I would remind everyone the legislation that passed last year, 90 to 8, was the original bill we laid down. So everyone understands, it was held up because of the Dubai Ports issue, which was resolved quite quickly.

Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote begin now and be discontinued at 20 after the hour.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

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

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there are two more votes; is that right?

I ask unanimous consent that the votes be 10 minutes in length.

I am sorry, I should have suggested that on the last vote, but I just didn't do it.

Amendment No. 4, as Modified and Amended

I yield back my minute.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, this is the vote. People who do not vote to invoke cloture are not in favor of doing away with the culture of corruption we have here in Washington. This is good legislation. It is the most significant reform since Watergate by many degrees. I hope people will vote for cloture.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider that vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the bill be delayed to occur only if cloture is invoked on the substitute.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak therein for a period of up to 10 minutes each.