[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1850-S1852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2349) to provide greater transparency in the 
     legislative process.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                Amendment No. 2932 to Amendment No. 2349

    (Purpose: To provide additional transparency in the legislative 
                                process)

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page S1851]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2932.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when we returned from the winter recess, 
this Democratic minority acted decisively by introducing S. 2180, which 
we call the Honest Leadership Act. We put reform to paper and 
established the baseline for the Senate by getting caucuswide support 
for what we believe is a very tough and comprehensive reform piece of 
legislation.
  Much of what we worked for as a caucus has now gained bipartisan 
support. I appreciate the work done by Senators Lott and Dodd. I 
appreciate the work done by Senators Lieberman and Collins. I 
especially appreciate the work of the committee members, both Democrats 
and Republicans.
  What we have now is a molding of both the bill that came out of the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Rules 
Committee. That bill included a significant portion of the bill we 
introduced. I compliment and applaud the two committees for getting us 
to the point where we are.
  There are aspects of the reported bills that need to be strengthened. 
As far as these measures now before the Senate, we want them to be 
consistent with legislation we introduced earlier this year. The 
amendment I have offered does that.
  The amendment would make a number of changes to the pending bill. It 
would prohibit sitting Members of the Senate and senior legislative and 
executive branch employees from negotiating for private sector 
employment where a conflict or appearance of a conflict exists.
  This amendment would impose criminal penalties in order to put a stop 
to the system of what many believe is a system of corruption that 
developed under the so-called K Street project. The K Street project 
was a form of institutionalized corruption in which Members of Congress 
limited access to government offices and influence over policy matters, 
or threatened to do so, as a means of forcing corporations, trade 
associations, and lobbying firms to hire Republicans and to tilt their 
political contributions to Republicans. It is a pay-to-play scheme as 
blatant and arrogant as anyone has seen in Congress.
  This amendment increases civil and criminal penalties under the 
Lobbying Disclosure Act for individuals who knowingly and willingly 
file false information.
  This amendment puts an end to the dead-of-night legislating and the 
practice of shutting Members and the public out of conference committee 
proceedings.
  One of our real complaints since we have become a minority is the 
majority does not even go through the sham of holding a conference. 
They just march over in someone's office and say: This is what the bill 
is going to be.
  That is not the way things previously were done. We had public 
meetings where there were debates and votes in public. That is what we 
want to be the future of this Senate. This amendment requires the 
conference committees hold regular formal open meetings and that each 
member of the conference be afforded an opportunity to vote on the full 
text of the bill in open session.
  This amendment prohibits all gifts from lobbyists, including meals. 
This amendment goes beyond simple disclosure and prohibits outside 
interests who advocate before the Congress from paying for travel for 
Members and staff, and bans most privately funded travel by companies, 
groups, business associations, and other special interests that lobby 
Congress. There would be a limited exemption for travel sponsored by 
501(c)(3) tax-exempt charities and educational groups that would be 
required to certify that lobbyists did not finance, organize, or 
participate in the travel.
  We worked hard to get this bill to the Senate. I hope this amendment 
will give us the bipartisan support we need to strengthen this 
legislation now before the Senate.
  I am disappointed we have heard today that the House Republican 
leaders have stated that they prefer a partisan approach, something 
different than we have had in the Senate to this point. The House 
Republican leaders have said they intend to tack regulation of 527 
groups onto their yet-to-be-seen lobbying reform bill. They also want 
to pair regulation of 527 groups with measures to weaken McCain-
Feingold laws in a way that would principally benefit the majority.
  In fact, these are the only clear priorities House Republican leaders 
appear to have for their bill. That is where the House Republicans' 
narrow interest lies. Theirs is a partisan goal of changing the rules 
of our campaign finance system to hedge against the possibility of 
Republican election losses this fall. They think if you cannot win 
under the rules, then change them. That is what the House Republican 
leaders plan.
  What we have in the Senate, to this point, has been bipartisan, 
Democrats and Republicans. What has been talked about in the House 
today is anti-reform legislation. Our Senate leaders--and I am 
directing my attention principally to the two committees--have rejected 
this effort and, again, I congratulate them for that.

  As Senator Dodd so aptly put it yesterday, campaign finance reform is 
much larger than the narrow question of 527 groups. The House 
Republican leaders want to shut those down because of the perception 
that these groups benefit Democrats. But what about trade associations 
which engage in the same types of activities? What about these 
foundations that we have heard so much about lately that pay relatives 
and friends and campaign workers? We know these trade associations 
engage in activities because we have seen their handiwork in 
advertisements, political advertisements for Republican candidates up 
this cycle. They were also active in 2004.
  Yet the trade associations engaging in these activities are even less 
regulated than 527 groups. They are not required, as 527s are, to 
disclose their expenditures and their donors. They operate in the 
shadows. These groups principally benefit Republicans.
  We also need to crack down on abuses of foundations, as I mentioned, 
and charities which are used by Members for personal gain or for 
campaign purposes. Curiously, we do not hear Republican calls to 
regulate any of these activities.
  So what Senator Dodd and I say is, if we are going to have a debate 
on foundations, trade associations, and 527s, let's have a debate on 
that and not try to bury what we have on the floor, an Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act. I understand it is a way that the 
House thinks it will take this bill down. But as Senator Dodd said, if 
this comes back from a conference and this is the issue, there will not 
be lobbying reform. That would be very unfair, wrong for this 
institution.
  As important as these campaign finance issues are, they are on the 
periphery, really, of the big issue; that is, how do we pay for 
campaigns? Is public financing--which some Senators believe is the 
right way to go--where we need to go? That is why a debate should be on 
campaign finance reform and not trying to muddle up and confuse the 
Senate on the issue now before us.
  Lobbying reform, of all things, should not be twisted into a vehicle 
exploited by one party to gain electoral advantage. If that is a path 
which is chosen, it will be a poison pill. The legislation will come 
down. I hope this does not happen. We have worked with Republicans so 
far to make sure this issue does not get entangled with campaign 
finance reform, such as the public funding of campaigns or the 
regulation of these 527 groups. I hope we can continue to do that.
  This amendment is, in effect, an effort to plug the holes that were 
not placed in this legislation by the Rules Committee and the Homeland 
Security Committee. I hope we have a good debate on this issue. This is 
not something that should take a long time. I have told the 
distinguished majority leader this is no attempt to stall this 
legislation. I have told the majority leader that unless there are 
issues outside of what the two committees did that are within their 
jurisdiction, we

[[Page S1852]]

have no intention of offering a myriad of issues we have Members 
clamoring to offer--issues on the port security deal, minimum wage, all 
kinds of things dealing with health care. There is a long list of 
issues we want to bring up as soon as possible, but we are not going to 
do it on this legislation. We believe this should be for lobbying 
reform. So I think it needs the good faith of both parties to see if we 
can move down that road.
  I have asked my caucus, if they want to speak on this issue, to do it 
as soon as they can, hopefully in the morning when we come in. It would 
be good if we could have a vote before we go to our respective lunches. 
The majority has a Steering Committee meeting every Wednesday. We have 
a special caucus tomorrow. It would be good if we could wrap up the 
vote before then.
  Mr. President, I wish everyone a good evening. Good night.

                          ____________________