[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 3 (Monday, January 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S220-S221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 LOBBYING, ETHICS, AND EARMARK REFORMS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked if, as 
the new chairman of the Rules Committee, I would come down and briefly 
say a few words about the bill we will be placing on the floor 
tomorrow. That bill is S. 1. This bill has passed the Senate before by 
a vote of 90 to 8. It offers the opportunity for the Senate to come

[[Page S221]]

together, in a bipartisan way, and pass lobbying reforms, some ethics 
reform, some earmarks reform, and take a real step together in an 
important way.
  As we all know, the House has passed a set of rules, and so the 
conference is going to be an interesting one because the Senate will 
have its own bill. The House will have its own exclusive rules and 
hopefully will present some bill language from relevant committees in 
the House that we will be able to reconcile in the conference 
committee.
  Tomorrow, with Senator Bennett as the ranking member, as well as 
Senators Lieberman and Collins, we will formally present this bill. I 
hope that the presentation will reflect our commitment to work together 
to see that the discussion is full, that we understand that there are 
differences of opinion within the Senate on some of the points, but 
that it is critically important that action be taken.
  We all know what has happened this past year. We all know that the 
results of the election have indicated that corruption is an important 
concern of the electorate, some say the most important concern, even 
with Iraq, that was voted on in this election. So the voice of the 
people calling us to move ahead, pass legislation, and see that our 
House is clean and scrupulous is increasingly important. I believe we 
will measure up.
  The base bill that will be on the floor tomorrow is identical to the 
bill that was passed last year. It came to the floor in the early part 
of the year and was then passed by the Senate. It was held up in the 
House over a difference of opinion on 527 reform. And from that point 
on, it was stymied and went nowhere.
  It is also my understanding--and my staff has been a party to the 
discussions--that there will be a leadership amendment. That leadership 
amendment will be concurred in by the majority leader, the minority 
leader, the chair and ranking member of Rules and others. It will 
essentially toughen the bill that was presented last year. We will deal 
with a number of issues, including strengthening the earmark language.
  Now, I want to make a couple of personal comments on earmarks. In my 
view, this is the most difficult part of the entire bill, to reconcile 
feelings, to be able to develop some form of a consensus. An earmark is 
an appropriation placed in the budget by Members of Congress. I believe 
earmarks should exist. We have big States, and I come from a big State 
of 38 million people. We pay far more in taxes than we get back in 
services. Therefore, to be able to place in the budget certain critical 
items that benefit California's infrastructure and California's 
programs is important.
  I also strongly believe that my name should accompany the earmark. I 
have no problem letting anyone know what earmark I have suggested.
  I strongly believe that--and this is where I think I probably differ 
from some of my colleagues--if an earmark is added in the dark of 
night, if the earmark is not voted on by a subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, it should be subject to a 60-vote point of 
order. Right now, rule XXVIII, according to the Parliamentarian, does 
not apply to earmarks per se but out-of-scope matters only--for 
example, ANWR. So I think the discussion in the ensuing week and a half 
is going to be an interesting one.
  Secondly, are earmarks just non-Federal additions, congressional 
additions to a budget, or do they also encompass funds that go to State 
entities or private entities? As we work on this issue, I say to the 
Members that I would very much like to know your views. I would like to 
work with every Member. It is my intention as the new chairman of the 
Rules Committee to work openly and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way not 
only with the ranking member but with other Republicans and Democrats 
on that committee. The first hearing we will have in the Rules 
Committee will be on the subject of the past election--specifically, 
the undervote in Sarasota, FL, on certain items on their ballot, e-
voting, and what we might be able to do to assure people who vote that 
their vote is recorded accurately; that there are actually no 
switchovers; that there is no difference between how you press the 
button and how your vote is recorded; and that you can corroborate with 
a paper trail that, in fact, that is the way you voted.
  I come to the Senate floor to make very brief opening remarks and 
signal my intention to work with the Rules Committee on this bill in a 
bipartisan way and, hopefully, to make as much progress as we can.
  I have been an appropriator for 13 out of my 15 years in this body. I 
have served in different capacities, as we all have. We work our way up 
through the chairs in Appropriations. I think the time has come for 
earmarks, and for holds as well, to stop the anonymity, give them the 
full light of day; for Members who produce earmarks to be willing to 
defend them and that when earmarks are placed in the dark of night by a 
Member, they would be subject to a 60-vote point of order.
  I will say one other thing about holds. A hold is something that a 
Member does to essentially indicate that they have a concern about a 
vote. It is difficult, from a parliamentary perspective, to take action 
because you may just want to hold a bill so that you have an 
opportunity to read it, which would just be 24 hours or so. Or you may 
have some mischief in your mind when you produce a hold. I have seen 
holds that were put on virtually everything that came out of a 
committee because one Member wanted to make a point. I have seen 
Members put holds on every bill another Member had to make a point. It 
seems to me that along with the era of the anonymous earmark, the era 
of the anonymous hold ought to be put to rest with a big sign that says 
``rest in peace.''
  This is a new day. I do agree that transparency and full disclosure 
act in the best interest of this body. I look forward to presenting the 
bill tomorrow, along with Ranking Member Bennett, Senator Lieberman, 
and Senator Collins, and to the ensuing 6 or 7 days of discussion and 
amendments.
  I want to ask one other thing, and that is that when the bill comes 
to the floor, Members come down and file their amendments so that in 
addition to the leadership-proposed substitute, we will have knowledge 
of what is about to come to the floor.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business 
with Members granted approximately 10 minutes apiece, if they so 
choose; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer.

                          ____________________