[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S250-S257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to consideration of S. 1, for 
debate only, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to provide greater transparency in the 
     legislative process.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:15 
p.m. shall be equally divided between the leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have discussed with Senator Bennett 
a proposal for a unanimous consent agreement on a speaking order. I 
would like quickly to move it as a request for unanimous consent that I 
be given 15 minutes; Senator Bennett, as ranking member, 15 minutes; 
Senator Tester, 10 minutes; Senator Lott, if he cares to come down, 10 
or 15 minutes which, if it is 15, will balance with 15 on the 
Democratic side; Senator Nelson, 15; the next open slot for a 
Republican, 15 minutes; and Senator Salazar, 15 minutes.
  I ask that at 2:15, for 15 minutes each, the majority leader be 
recognized, followed by the minority leader if he requests time.
  Mr. President, let me vitiate that last part because we would like to 
have Senators Lieberman and Collins recognized at 2:15 for 15 minutes 
each and then Senators Reid and McConnell, if they so desire. That is 
the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is an honor to take the floor today 
as the new chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee to 
help lead the battle for meaningful and credible ethics reform. In the 
last election, the message was loud and clear: It is time to change the 
way business is done in the Nation's Capitol. Passage of this ethics 
reform package is the most direct action we can take to show the 
American people that tighter rules and procedures are in place and that 
the corrupt practices of the few will no longer be permitted. Strong 
criminal sanctions for these practices will henceforth be in place.
  Passage of this bill will demonstrate once and for all that we care 
more about representing the American people than the perks of power.
  I am especially pleased to be joined in this effort by my new ranking 
member, Senator Bennett, with whom I look to work very closely in this 
new Congress. I am also pleased that Senator Lieberman, the new 
chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Senator 
Collins, the ranking member of that committee, have agreed to join us 
on the floor as comanagers of this bill.
  On March 29, 2006, by a 90-to-8 vote, the Senate passed S. 2349, the 
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, which has now been 
introduced by the majority and minority leaders as S. 1. This 
legislation was a combination of separate bills reported by the Rules 
Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. 
It came to the floor early last year, at a time when Americans were 
becoming increasingly concerned about corrupt and criminal practices by 
a group of lobbyists, administration officials, congressional staff 
and, yes, even Members of Congress.
  Also, various questions were raised about the K Street Project, in 
which lobbyist firms, trade associations, and other business groups 
were told they

[[Page S251]]

would encounter a closed door in Congress unless they hired members of 
the then majority party.
  The Senate-passed bill was a strong ethics, earmark and lobbying 
reform package. Unfortunately, the House voted instead to soften the 
provisions, lift the limits on party expenditures in general elections, 
and regulate 527 groups. A stalemate ensued and no conference report 
was returned. Now, with a new Congress under Democratic leadership, the 
Senate's first bill, S. 1, is essentially the same text as the Senate-
passed S. 2349.
  I believe one message that was very clear in the last election was 
the need for Congress to immediately take steps to restore the public's 
trust. I would like to briefly outline the major provisions of the base 
bill and then follow up with some discussion about the improvements 
that are being considered in a bipartisan leadership substitute.
  This is now the base bill. It prohibits gifts and travel paid for by 
lobbyists. Section 106 bans all gifts and meals from lobbyists. Section 
107(a) bans travel paid for by lobbyists or in which lobbyists 
participate. Section 107(b) requires full disclosure of travel by 
Members or their staffs on noncommercial airplanes. It closes the 
revolving door. Section 241 extends the existing lobbying ban for 
former Members and senior executive branch personnel from 1 to 2 years. 
That is a consequential change. Sections 108 and 241 toughen the 
existing lobbying ban for senior staff--those making 75 percent of a 
Member's salary or more--by prohibiting them from lobbying anyone in 
the Senate, not just their former boss or committee, as is presently 
required.
  Section 109 requires public disclosure by Members of any negotiations 
for private sector employment.
  Section 105 strips floor privileges from former Members who become 
registered lobbyists so that no former Senator can come to the Senate 
floor to lobby.
  Section 110 bars immediate family members from lobbying a Member or 
his or her office, though they could still lobby other offices.
  Section 103 requires that a sponsor of an earmark be identified with 
the additional spending requests in the earmark on all bills, 
amendments, and conference reports.
  Section 104 requires conference reports, including the sponsors of 
earmarks in these reports, be posted on the Internet at least 48 hours 
before a vote unless the Senate determines by a majority vote that it 
is urgent to proceed to the legislation. So there is a hiatus in which 
names of sponsors will be published on the Internet for at least 48 
hours.
  Section 102 subjects any out-of-scope matter added by a conference 
report to a 60-vote point of order. What does ``out of scope'' mean? It 
means a matter not approved by either body of the Congress. If you have 
a matter not approved by either body, and you want to bring it up in a 
conference report, you would have to withstand the test of a 60-vote 
point of order if a Member saw fit to bring that point of order. The 
Parliamentarian tells me that would not include earmarks added in 
conference which were not approved by the House or Senate. Members 
should know that. Earmarks are not included, just out-of-scope issues. 
We might want to take that into consideration.
  As I have said before, I strongly believe such earmarks which have 
been added without being voted on by the subcommittee, committee, House 
or Senate, should be subject to a 60-vote point of order. I am 
interested in working with any colleagues on this matter.
  The provision at issue was based on a stand-alone bill I introduced 
with Senator Lott last year, but it was changed as it moved forward. 
Even though it may not include earmarks, it is an important provision 
which will go a long way toward stopping controversial provisions often 
added in the dark of night.
  Transparency in the Senate: Section 111 makes the K Street project--
that is, partisan efforts to influence private sector hiring--a 
violation of Senate rules.
  Section 232 requires ethics training for members of staff.
  Section 234 requires the Ethics Committee to issue annual reports on 
its activity--not to name names but to give the public a better idea 
about how active the committee has been.
  Section 114 of the bill requires Senators to identify holds they 
place on legislation. This is an important improvement. All too often, 
important legislation has been blocked by an anonymous hold, and nobody 
knows who it is. Here, one person can stop a bill that has been 
dutifully passed out of the committee and passed by the Senate. This 
measure does not prevent such holds but requires that the Senator doing 
this file a public report in the Congressional Record within 3 days.
  My colleagues from the Homeland Security and Government Affairs 
Committee will have much to say about the lobbyist disclosure 
provisions because they fall within the jurisdiction of their 
committee.
  Let me go into a few major provisions under discussion that would 
likely come with a substitute amendment. The first is sporting and 
entertainment events. The substitute requires the proper and full 
valuation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events. No more cut-
rate tickets to combat the below-market prices being charged Members 
and staff as a way of getting around the gift ban. It would close the 
revolving door. The substitute prohibits Members from negotiating for 
private sector employment that involves lobbying activity while still 
holding office. Senior staff would have to inform the Ethics Committee 
if they enter into negotiations for private sector employment.
  The substitute will also have a repeal on the current exception to 
the revolving door lobbying ban for Federal staffers hired by Indian 
tribes, something my office has worked on with Senator Reid.
  Now, earmarks. Over the last 12 years, the number of earmarks have 
tripled to 16,000, worth $64 billion a year. The process has clearly 
gotten out of control. An important first step is disclosure. The 
substitute provides much more vigorous transparency. In the bill 
approved by the Senate last March, an earmark is defined as ``a 
provision that specifies the identity of a non-Federal entity to 
receive assistance and the amount of that assistance.'' The term 
``assistance'' means budget authority, contract authority, loan 
authority, and other expenditures and tax expenditures or other revenue 
items.
  In the substitute, earmarks will be defined much more broadly to 
include not only non-Federal entities but any provision that benefits 
only one non-Federal entity even though the original funding is routed 
through a Federal agency. This is meant to get at the kind of earmarks 
notoriously offered by former Representative Cunningham that 
effectively directed funds to a non-Federal entity but did not directly 
name the entity.
  We will also include targeted tax benefits and targeted tariff 
benefits in the definition of earmarks.
  Another section is a provision sponsored by Senators Conrad and 
Gregg, chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. This 
amendment requires a Congressional Budget Office score for all 
conference reports before they are considered by the Senate. In 
emergencies, this could be waived by 60 votes.
  The substitute will express the sense of the Senate on fair and open 
conference committee procedures. What that means is for the majority 
party not to exclude the minority party from the conference. We 
Democrats know what this is like. We would like to end that and have 
conferences open for the free discussion of Members of both political 
parties. This is a sensible provision. We should put an end to the 
practice that existed in this last Congress.
  There will also be a ban on dead-of-night additions to conference 
reports after they have already been signed by Members. I actually 
couldn't believe this went on, but it does, and we should end it.
  There are two important areas on which no agreement has been reached. 
Our majority leader had proposed broadening gift reform in S. 1 to 
prohibit gifts not only from lobbyists but also from organizations that 
employ or retain lobbyists, which makes sense. He had proposed 
broadening the travel provisions of S. 1 to prohibit travel paid for 
not only by lobbyists but also by organizations that employ or retain 
lobbyists and prohibit lobbyists' involvement in that travel. I also 
think that makes sense.

[[Page S252]]

  The minority leadership did not agree on the two proposals, so I now 
expect to see our majority leader offer an amendment on this 
separately. I will be pleased to support it.
  In conclusion, a USA Today Gallup Poll last month said that only 15 
percent of those polled gave our House high marks for honesty. That was 
down from 25 percent in 2001 when Members got their best score since 
1976. When one looks at the scandals that were exposed last year, that 
is not surprising. The ties between lobbyists and lawmakers must be 
broken. Yes, the public has a constitutional right to petition 
Congress, but that right should not be limited to those who seek any 
special access.
  The 2006 election saw the largest congressional shift since 1994. 
Even with the war on Iraq on voters' minds, polls showed Americans more 
concerned about ethics in government. The stakes are high. It is 
imperative we act. We have a vehicle to do so before the Senate. I hope 
we will.
  I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Rules 
Committee for her careful and cogent explanation of what is in the 
bill. I am happy to be an original cosponsor of S. 1. I will be a 
cosponsor of the substitute that will be provided under her leadership 
along with Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.
  I agree with her and with most others that we need to move ahead on 
this issue. We need to let the American people know we are paying 
attention to the ethics questions as they relate to lobbying and to our 
own internal activities.
  Her discussion of earmarks has very little to do with the way 
lobbyists operate but with the way the Congress operates. Lobbyists 
react to what we do. They are paid to pay attention to what we do and 
then shift and adjust their activities to match what is going on in the 
Congress. Many of the problems we have seen arise in the last dozen 
years have come from changes within Congress, changes in procedures--
not formal changes but evolutionary changes--that have come along as 
Congress has reacted to the pressures we face.
  My first experience in this town was as a teenager, as an intern. I 
suppose there is something wrong with me because I was enough of a 
political junky that I used to sit in the gallery at night when I could 
have gone home and listen to the debate in the Senate. I would amuse 
myself in the daytime by reading the Congressional Record. I am not 
sure how many people would do that today.
  In those days, debate in the Senate was real debate. Senators would 
come to the Senate, go back and forth with each other. Things were 
different. The way things moved through committees was different. It 
was a much more leisurely and orderly process.
  I have seen, in the 14 years I have been in the Senate, the process 
speed up to the point that even the kind of cursory examination we 
would give to legislation 14 years ago has gone by the boards.
  I have been part of the process of creating the omnibus 
appropriations bill, which is probably the worst possible way to 
legislate. Yet under the pressures we found ourselves confronted with 
it was the only way to get appropriations bills completed.
  I have watched as the authorizing process has gradually but 
inexorably broken down as authorizers now come to appropriators and 
say: We can't get this through our committee for a variety of reasons. 
Would you add it to the appropriations bill? The appropriations bill is 
picked because it is the only bill that has to pass. We have to fund 
the Government.
  I remember a Congress when Secretary Babbitt had a vital problem 
relating to his department and to my State. We talked it through. Then 
he said: Senator, see if you can get it on the CR, the continuing 
resolution. There was no opportunity for passage of that particular 
item. Here is a Cabinet officer, representing President Clinton, 
talking to a Republican Senator, representing the people of Utah, and 
the advice is: See if you can put it on the CR.
  Obviously, the process of orderly authorization, oversight, 
examination, and then appropriations which is laid down in our rules 
has broken down under the pressure. It was in that crucible where 
people such as Duke Cunningham would step forward and say: We are going 
to take advantage of this broken process to our own personal advantage.
  Now, understand, Duke Cunningham is in jail. Understand, Jack 
Abramoff, the lobbyist who saw the opportunity of exploiting this 
breakdown, is in jail. The laws, the rules, the ethics that currently 
exist, gave rise in this present circumstance to a comment someone 
made. He said: You folks in the Congress are the only people I know 
who, when someone breaks the rules, decide the thing to do is to change 
the rules.
  There is some sense that perhaps we are overreacting to the scandals 
of Abramoff and Cunningham. I do not believe that S. 1 is an 
overreaction, nor do I believe is the substitute offered by Senators 
Reid and McConnell, of which I and I am assuming the chairman of the 
committee are original cosponsors. But as the debate goes forward, 
there might be a temptation to overreact in some of the amendments that 
will be offered to this bill and to the substitute. So I want to make a 
few points about the whole process of lobbying.
  Again, a little personal history: Back in the 1960s, I was a 
lobbyist. I have said my timing was terrible because when I went to 
work as a lobbyist, lobbyists were not paid as much as Members. Today 
it seems to be the other way around.
  I remember belonging to a group that very creatively called itself 
the Breakfast Group because we met for breakfast once a month. It 
consisted of all of the lobbyists of Fortune 500 companies in 
Washington at the time. We would meet at the Chamber of Commerce where 
the staffer from the Chamber of Commerce would brief us on their 
attitudes toward our issues. He left the chamber to set up an office 
for a Fortune 500 company and wanted to join the group as one of our 
members. We voted him in, and then we voted the membership closed 
because we said if we get too many more, it will be too big. There were 
20 members. There were 20 people who were representatives of Fortune 
500 companies at the time.
  Mr. President, this is an old document I hold in my hand from 2000, 
so it is 6 years old. It includes the names of all of the lobbyists who 
are currently in Washington. That little group of 20 has grown somewhat 
in the 40 years from then till now. But as you look through this list, 
one thing becomes clear that I think a lot of people do not understand 
with respect to the legislation we are considering. By virtue of all of 
the people who have now entered this kind of activity, virtually every 
single American is represented by a lobbyist. Every single American has 
someone lobbying in behalf of his or her interests, whether he or she 
knows it or not.
  I just dipped into this document, turned open some pages, at complete 
random, to see who are the lobbyists and what are they here for. Here 
on page 473, we have the Legal Action Center for the City of New York: 
A not-for-profit law and policy organization fighting discrimination 
against people with substance abuse problems, people with HIV/AIDS, and 
people with criminal records. So people who have substance abuse 
problems, HIV/AIDS, and criminal records have a lobbyist.
  Here is the Learning Disabilities Association. Here is the Lawyers 
Alliance for World Security: A national, non-partisan membership 
organization of legal professionals dedicated to stopping unrestrained 
weapons proliferation and bringing the rule of law to the newly 
independent nations of the former Soviet Union. So if you are against 
nuclear proliferation, you have a lobbyist.
  The League of Conservation Voters: A national, non-partisan arm of 
the environmental movement, works to elect pro-environmental candidates 
to Congress, publishes annual ratings of Congress, and so on.
  OK. Flipping ahead, we have the National Association of Schools of 
Dance: Accreditation of post-secondary educational programs in dance--
they have a lobbyist--along with the National Association of State 
Units on Aging: A

[[Page S253]]

national, non-profit public-interest organization dedicated to 
providing general and specialized information, technical assistance, 
and professional development support to State units on aging.
  And I went a little deeper away from national associations. We have, 
on page 636 the Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation: An 
educational organization developing a museum in Washington featuring 
interactive CD-ROM-based computer technology. And next to that is the 
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County and across the page, the 
Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota.
  Every American is represented in one form or another by a lobbyist. 
So we must be careful as we deal with the perception that comes out of 
perhaps televisionland that all lobbyists are corrupt, all lobbyists 
operate with shady activities, with under-the-table money.
  If we decide that is, in fact, what we are dealing with and clamp 
down in such a way so hard as to get in the way of the National 
Association of Schools of Dance, we will do damage to the 
constitutional right--right there in the first amendment, next to 
freedom of religion and freedom of speech--the constitutional right to 
lobby. They did not call it that in the 18th century. They said the 
right to petition the Government for redress of your grievances because 
the Capitol had not been built and a lobby had not been created. But 
the word came out of people exercising their rights. We must respect 
that. We must recognize we have to do this very carefully. And we must 
recognize that internal reform, disclosure of earmarks, activities with 
respect to conference reports, cleaning up our own act of how we handle 
legislation is an important part of seeing to it that the process is 
proper.
  As I said at the outset, I do not believe S. 1 is an overreaction. I 
do not believe the amendment in the nature of a substitute is an 
overreaction. I am happy to be an original cosponsor of both. And I 
salute the majority leader in his determination to start out with this 
issue because it is an issue on which we can reach broad bipartisan 
agreement. It is an issue that can send the message to the voters that, 
yes, we recognize that, however it has evolved, the rules do need to be 
changed. Even though the people who broke the old rules were caught 
under the old rules, convicted under the old rules, and sent to prison 
under the old rules, we need to be looking ahead and recognize that in 
a world where virtually everyone is involved, in one way or another, we 
need to do this right.
  So I am happy to be a part of this debate, and I appreciate the 
leadership we are receiving from the majority leader and from the 
chairman of the committee.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member for his excellent comments, and I have learned something about 
his life which I found very interesting. I did not know he had started 
his distinguished career as a lobbyist, and I clearly saw the growth of 
that institution in the book the Senator held up. I thank the Senator 
very much for his comments. I look forward to working with him in the 
committee.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask all Members, beginning this 
afternoon, to please come and file your amendments. We are eager to 
have them. In the unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from Montana 
is next, Mr. Tester. However, I do not see him on the Senate floor. So 
let me say this: The way we will run this is by doing a unanimous 
consent agreement and trying to line up speakers, if that is agreeable 
with the ranking member. If people are not here, they will lose their 
place in line.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senator, is that agreeable to the ranking 
member?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, Mr. President, that will be agreeable to me, with 
the understanding that if the Senator does show up, then they will go 
in the queue wherever they can fit.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  I see the Senator from Montana just emerging for his first appearance 
before this body, and he is therefore recognized for--I have 10 minutes 
down.
  I ask the Senator, would you require 10 minutes or 15 minutes because 
we will give the same amount to the distinguished Senator Lott?
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Feinstein, 10 minutes 
will be more than adequate.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Fine. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of time to 
the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. TESTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  It is a great honor for me to be before you today in this Chamber as 
a Senator representing the great State of Montana.
  It is the genius of American democracy that a third-generation family 
farmer from Big Sandy, MT, can serve in the world's greatest 
deliberative body. We have a great opportunity with great 
responsibility. Americans are not enamored by ideology or political 
party. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I wanted to make Government 
work for the American people once again.
  Montanans stood by me to demand change. We are here today because the 
American people want their Government to work. Today, we can show the 
American people that their Government does work by enacting genuine 
ethics reform, to ensure a Government that is transparent and open.
  As I met with the folks across the State of Montana, I heard over and 
over again about the loss of faith in our Government and our elected 
officials. Scandals and questionable behavior have brought a shadow 
over this institution. But today the Sun is rising again.
  The leadership of Senator Reid and the addition of the Feingold-Obama 
ethics reforms are a giant step forward in restoring the public's faith 
in their Government and public officials. The ``for sale'' sign on 
Congress will be taken down, and the pay-to-play practices of past 
Members will finally come to an end. These bills shine a spotlight on 
how Members operate in Washington to ensure that the people's business 
rather than the special interests' business is being done.
  In Montana, we believe in working together with our neighbors to find 
solutions to our problems. And in our Nation, the American people are 
looking for all of us to represent them, the people, those hard-working 
families trying to make ends meet.
  The best way to work for the American people is to ensure that they 
cannot only see what is happening in their Government but that they can 
take part in their Government. It is time for transparency, time for 
working families, small businesses and family farmers and ranchers to 
not only be heard but to be represented and empowered in this body and 
in the Halls of our Nation's Capitol.
  No more currying favor with Members of Congress and staff by high-
powered lobbyists through free court-side tickets or all-expense-paid 
travel to exotic destinations. No more slipping in special interest 
provisions in bills already signed, sealed, and all but delivered. No 
more floor privileges and Member gym privileges for former Members 
lobbying on behalf of their clients. No more so-called K Street 
projects in which Members force lobbying firms to hire staffers from a 
certain party or lose the Member's support for their clients' projects.
  Montanans and Americans simply deserve better from their Government 
and elected representatives. Montanans and Americans deserve a 
government that is working hard for their interests, not the big-
moneyed special interests. All of these special privileges and 
activities get in the way of making real changes that will improve the 
lives of hard-working and honest American and Montana families.
  I want to do the job the people of Montana have hired me to do, and 
this ethics package gives me the tools to do just that. I am proud and 
honored to join with my colleagues in support of change that will bring 
sunshine to the process of government and allow for transparency.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise again, for the second

[[Page S254]]

year in a row, in support of the Legislative Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2007. It was my pleasure, last year, as the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, to work with my colleague on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, Chris Dodd, and in fact, the entire 
committee in a bipartisan way to produce this legislation from the 
Rules Committee.
  Then we brought it to the floor. We had an open process. We had lots 
of amendments offered. At some point it was the will of the Senate we 
bring debate it to a close, and we produced legislation because there 
is a need for ethics and lobby reform. I have been an aggressive 
supporter of many of the provisions that have been already mentioned 
today and that are included in this bill.
  So I want to make it clear that last year the Senate passed this 
legislation, with significant improvements or changes in the law with 
regard to the rules of the Senate, ethics, and lobbying reform, and 
moved it into the process of being in conference with the 
House. Unfortunately, it was not concluded.

  I do have a long history in this area, going back to when I was in 
the House in the 1970s, and when we passed some gift reform in the 
1980s. And here we are again. I don't back away from having in the past 
supported some changes. And having done it last year and again this 
year, I think we should move forward in this area. But I must say, I am 
delighted to yield the leadership role on this issue to the 
distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. She is now the 
incoming chairman of the Committee on Rules managing this legislation 
in place of Chris Dodd of Connecticut who did such a good job last 
year, and my colleague from the great State of Utah, Senator Bennett. 
These two people will work together. They will do a credible job. They 
will aggressively support responsible changes in the ethics rules and 
lobbying laws of this country. However, I believe they will have the 
courage to say to us sometimes: Wait a minute, what does this mean? 
What are we doing to ourselves, the institution, and the job we do?
  I have been in Congress 34 years. I know when changes need to be 
made. I also know sometimes when we are about to put a gun to our head 
and pull the trigger. Let's do this in a responsible, nonpartisan way 
that is good for the institution and good for America. But, please, 
let's not turn it into feckless positioning to make it look good when, 
in fact, the result could be very counterproductive. I hope we will not 
do that. I don't question anybody's motives. We all have perspectives 
we have to think about.
  Take, for instance, the issue of earmarks. We all have views on that. 
In some areas it is called pork. I have said many times that earmarks 
are pork when they are north of Memphis, TN.
  I am from one of the poorest States in the Nation. I am not going to 
give up the right, the opportunity to get some help for some of the 
poorest people in America when the bureaucracy won't do it.
  I have a little old town in Mississippi, Tchula, MS, with an African-
American woman, Republican mayor, where they have to haul water to 
their houses for drinking. That is in America today. It is unbelievable 
that in 2006, you have people who don't have safe drinking water in 
this country. We passed the safe drinking water legislation in 1996. 
Yet it still doesn't seem to filter down to the poorest of the poor 
sometimes. I tried for years to get HUD to help this little town that 
sits in a saucer that floods every year.
  I said: Please help us move these people onto higher ground, get them 
out of their snake-infested, annually flooded houses; help us get them 
water and sewers; help us get them decent housing; help us get them a 
community center, a police station. Just help them.
  I never got a nickel. So my colleague Senator Cochran and I started 
earmarking funds for this little town. It wasn't big. It was a 
relatively small amount of money. But if we cannot, as Senators or 
Congressmen from a district or a State, whether it is Montana, 
Minnesota or Mississippi, step up sometimes where legislation has not 
done the job, or where the bureaucracy has not done its job, and fix 
the problem, then we are not fulfilling our Constitutional obligations 
to the citizens of our states. Sometimes I know more about the need for 
a transportation project than some bureaucrat at the Department of 
Transportation. I am not going to give up what I consider a 
Constitutional right, and that is the right to shape how federal money 
is spent.
  However, has earmarking gotten out of control? Yes. Has it been 
growing like topsy over the years under Democrats and Republican? Yes.
  Some people say: You shouldn't get an appropriation unless it has 
been authorized. Do you know why we started getting appropriations for 
projects that weren't authorized? Because we quit authorizing. The 
Senate got in a situation in recent years--and it goes back to both 
Republicans and Democrats; we share the blame on this--where we quit 
getting bills done. How many bills lie dormant at this desk because 
there is a hold by a fellow Republican or a Democrat against a fellow 
Democrat? If you wait until you get authorization, such as a water 
resources bill, before you get the appropriation, you may never get it. 
That forced a lot of what has happened.
  I am a firm believer in sunshine. Disclose it. That is the best 
antiseptic. I am not ashamed of what I do. If I am going to be 
embarrassed if it is made public, I won't do it. Of course, there is 
one danger. The more we publicize what we are doing, there may be more 
and more pressure on us to do more. Somebody is going to have to 
explain on the Appropriations Committee why Senator X gets an earmark 
and Senator Y doesn't. So we may be, again, creating growth in this 
process. But I think we should disclose it. I don't have any problem 
with identifying earmarks, explanations of earmarks. There is no amount 
of disclosure you can come up with that I wouldn't think is OK.
  I also--and Senator Feinstein knows this--have developed a real 
concern about what has been going on now and growing for a number of 
years where things are added in conference at the last minute that were 
not considered by, or included in, either the House or the Senate bill. 
That unnerves me. By the way, it is not just appropriations; it is 
authorizations, and it is tax bills.
  The one incident that alarmed me actually involved a tax bill. 
Because if you are a conferee in the last minute of conference some 
night at 10 o'clock and you can change a phrase in a tax bill that can 
mean billions for a particular sector of the economy, that is very 
dangerous. But it happens.
  I know it is difficult to write exact language to deal with the 
problem of last minute inserts in conference reports. I drafted such 
language that I believe will be workable. I welcome these new leaders 
of the Rules Committee and recommend they review closely the language I 
have drafted that addresses this issue and I believe will not create a 
tremendous problem for the leadership.

  Harry Reid is going to be standing here one day trying to wrap up a 
session on a major bill and if we create point of order authority on 
anything that is added in conference without some limits on it, he 
could be hit with a series of points of order, one after the other 
after the other. Then how do you complete the conference report? The 
leadership has to worry about that on both sides of the aisle.
  I think we could do more on these earmarks. My colleague from 
Mississippi Senator Cochran has been chairman of Appropriations, as 
well as the ranking member. I am going to make sure I work closely with 
him on how we do this. But we need to do more.
  I believe this legislation we have before us is a good effort. Some 
people say it is not good enough. Look, if we start trying to satisfy 
certain media people, certain ethics groups, there is no limit. We will 
all be living in robes in the Russell courtyard with no access to the 
outside. So we can't do that. But let's do all we can. Let's do some 
things that will improve the way we do business. I think this 
legislation does this. It is bipartisan in introduction. I understand a 
substitute will be offered later this afternoon that will maybe move 
the ball forward some more. I am not sure exactly what all that would 
be, but what I have looked at, I don't see major problems there. I do 
think how you deal with the defining earmarks and how you disclose 
sponsorship is important but more delicate than some may think.

[[Page S255]]

  With regard to gifts, we ought to get over that. We should not be 
having gifts from lobbyists. We shouldn't be having meals paid for by 
lobbyists. Some of you have heard me say this, anyway. If I never have 
to have another meal at night with, frankly, anybody, the happier I 
will be. But I am so offended that somebody says for the price of a 
meal, I can be had by a lobbyist or anybody else. People wouldn't elect 
me Senator from Mississippi if they thought I could be had for a meal. 
Plus the meals you have up here are not any good, anyway. You can't get 
blackeyed peas up here. You can't get really good, properly prepared 
catfish up here. It is outrageous. So my point is, I am insulted by the 
accusation. Get rid of the gifts and meals and get that perception off 
the table. You are not giving up much, anyway. I would rather go home 
and have dinner with my wife. That is what more of us ought to do.
  By the way, I hope under the present leadership we will have a little 
more time at night with our families. I have this unique idea about my 
job. I think you should work during the day, and I think you should go 
home at night. I hope we will not be nocturnal. I am glad to see 
Senator Reid saying he is going to hold the votes to 20 minutes. I am 
glad we are going to be working on Mondays and Fridays. When I had a 
little bit to say about that, we did that. We voted on Mondays and 
Fridays. I would rather work during the day and do the responsible 
thing and go home and be with my family at night.
  With regard to third-party-funded travel, again, I think we need to 
have a lot more disclosure. I think you ought to have detailed trip 
identification or itinerary, and a listing of who was on the trip. I do 
think we need to be careful. Are we going to totally ground ourselves 
around here? There are constitutional questions we have to consider. We 
do have to get places within our own States. I do think we should be 
aware that if you represent Maryland--maybe Senator Bennett made this 
point--if you represent a State that is relatively small, you can get 
where you need to be in an hour in a car. But if you represent Alaska 
or California, you can't get there. Even my State, when I go from the 
Mississippi gulf coast devastated by the hurricane to north Mississippi 
to that great center of learning at Oxford, the University of 
Mississippi, it is 346 miles. That is not even the end of the State. 
You can't get everywhere you need to be with just automobile 
transportation. Should you have to report it? Should there be a limit 
on how you do that? Absolutely. But let's be careful about making it 
impossible for us to do our jobs here as men and women of the Senate.
  With regard to some of the other rules included in this bill, floor 
privileges for former Members where the possibility, perception may be 
that a former Member is here lobbying on a bill, you can't have that, 
no. At the same time, we shouldn't prohibit former Members on the day 
we are sworn in, as we had this past week, from coming on to the floor 
and participating in that celebratory ceremony. Again, let's use some 
common sense. Don't prohibit them en bloc. Allow former Members to come 
on certain occasions, but don't allow them to come when we are 
legislating, certainly, if they are lobbying.
  Another issue deals with job negotiations by sitting Senators. Again, 
we ought to have disclosure. If you are negotiating for private 
employment, you should disclose that. That's what this bill does.
  In conclusion, I think we have a good base bill. It sounds as though 
the substitute may be OK. I am sure there are going to be some 
amendments that we should think about very carefully. Let's be careful 
about pompous pontificating or questioning other people's motives. 
Let's be careful that when we do something, we can actually enforce it. 
Let's think it through. I think we can do that. I think the way it has 
been brought up is fine.
  I am very concerned about the idea of an outside office of public 
integrity and how that could be used unfairly in a political season. 
Some people say: Well, don't worry about that. Well, you have to. 
Because we could do it to each other. You would hope that we wouldn't; 
I wouldn't do it to the Senator from Florida and he wouldn't do it to 
me. But it has been done. Going way back to my years in the House, I 
was on the franking commission. We had a process to file complaints 
with the franking commission if a Member of the House misused the 
frank. It was interesting, right before the election, how many extra 
complaints about abuse of the frank showed up before that commission. 
It became a political issue that was used to beat up a Member who quite 
often wasn't even guilty of anything wrong. But the damage was done. It 
was in the media.
  Mr. President, we can and should pass a reform bill. I said that last 
year. It is the right thing to do. But I hope that we will use common 
sense. Let's not turn ourselves into something where we can't even do 
the job. Let's not inadvertently make criminals out of ourselves and 
our staffs. I am not saying there haven't been problems and that there 
won't be in the future. We are all human beings, and we are capable of 
making mistakes. But we can do a better job. I think it is time we do 
that.
  I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned, this is going 
to be a bipartisan effort.
  This is not partisan. The mistakes made over the years that I have 
seen since I have been in Washington have been made on both sides of 
the aisle. We can do a better job of putting things into place where we 
are less likely to make a mistake. I wish the very best to the 
Chairlady and the ranking member. I think they can do a good job, and I 
think we can do something good for the institution, and we will restore 
a modicum of faith in us from the American people.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. LOTT. I think my time has expired. Who has the floor, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I wish to say this to my colleague in response 
to his excellent comments about the tendency of some folks to 
pontificate around here. It called to mind for this Senator the old 
adage that ``I would rather see a sermon than hear one any day.'' That 
might be a lesson for all of us in public office to remember.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is a very good adage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am not going to take that 
amount of time. I do want to go back to the basic underlying problem 
that finally is bringing us to the point that we are going to get a 
bill passed here and one in the House of Representatives, and we are 
going to get a compromise hammered out in a conference committee and 
get a product which we will send to the President for his signature.
  It basically has boiled down to the fact that we have had vote buying 
and earmark buying. That is inimical to the interests of this country 
and the way that we operate in a system of justice. It is inimical to 
the interest of a democracy, in representing the people, and when the 
people see this, they say: Enough; we want a change. We tried to do 
this in the last Congress. There was a bill passed here and there was a 
bill passed on the other side of the Capitol, but for all the various 
personal reasons and special interests, we could not get anything 
moving and get a final agreement.
  Now, what does this come out of? It comes out of a basic human 
failing called pride. Pride, by the way, in the Good Book, is mentioned 
as one of the greatest sins. Pride can be described in many other ways. 
It can be arrogance, obstinance or it can be an ``it is my way or the 
highway'' attitude. It can be quite destructive. As this observer of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would clearly note, 
it was arrogance in the NASA management that brought down two space 
shuttles--one in 1986 because the NASA management wasn't listening to 
what the engineers on the line were saying. The communication--in other 
words, due to arrogance and pride--was going one way, from the top to 
the bottom, not from the bottom up. That caused the destruction in 
January of 1986 of

[[Page S256]]

the space shuttle Challenger. And 18 years later, the very same thing 
happened again to NASA. The space shuttle Columbia was destroyed for a 
different technical reason than 18 years previously, but the same 
reason occurred, which was the arrogance of power and pride that had 
set in. The same thing happened. Communication was from the top down, 
but they weren't listening to the engineers on the line who were 
telling them that that thermal protection foam on the external tank was 
shedding in the launch of each of those space shuttles.
  So we say that same thing--pride, arrogance, the abuse of power. 
Remember the British politician who said, ``Power corrupts and absolute 
power corrupts absolutely.'' Indeed, that is what we see. It is not 
applicable to one side of the aisle or the other. This has happened 
throughout the history of this great democracy, over two centuries. So 
what happens is that, ultimately, the people will say: Enough, and we 
want change. Then we will try to respond to the change. We remember the 
reaction that occurred in this country in 1974 in the election as a 
result of the arrogance of power that had been in the White House that 
we know as the Watergate scandal. And then we know about in the decade 
of the 1980s, where the Democrats had been in power for decades, and 
then there was one thing after another that was happening. In the 
election of 1994, people were tired of the arrogance that was being 
displayed. Now we are on a shorter cycle--here, in a 12-year period, 
from 1994 to 2006, and people were saying: I don't like this vote 
buying, this earmark buying, where somebody gets a special 
appropriation because they happen to be getting special gifts of 
lodging and trips and gifts and antiques and meals, and so forth and so 
on. And, of course, that is the celebrated case of MGM and Mitchell 
Wade and all of that fallout, and you hear the revelations coming out 
of another lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and the resignation of another 
major figure in the House of Representatives. It all goes back to this 
arrogance of power.
  Since we all have ``feet of clay,'' what is the best way we can try 
to avoid that temptation of arrogance of power? The temptation is going 
to be there. First of all, it has to be right there in your heart. 
Check your own self as a public servant. But the next thing we can do 
is something that we are attempting to do in this legislation. You get 
everything out into the open, so that you know that there is always the 
fourth estate, the press, looking over your shoulder. That makes it 
easier for them to find out what the facts are. Thus, the earmarks have 
to be completely transparent if, indeed, there are going to be any 
earmarks, which is another question we will address on down the line.
  Get it out into the sunshine. We have a tradition of that in Florida 
from way back in the 1960s, enacting the sunshine law. State Senator J. 
Emory Cross, from Gainesville, FL, a place in celebration right now as 
a result of the national championship--Senator Cross, who was an old 
country lawyer and a State senator, said there has to be a different 
way. That was in the 1960s. They passed Florida's sunshine law which 
said that a government body meeting to discuss public business had to 
be in the public. All of that doesn't occur here all of the time--a lot 
of it by necessity because of national security, and so forth. But the 
most we can do is get things out into the open, in the full glare of 
the spotlight, so that people can evaluate that what we are and what we 
are not doing is to strengthen this democracy. That is what we have to 
do.
  I think this legislation is a step in the right direction. It is 
going to try to get at these lobbyist-financed meals, gifts, and 
travel. It is clearly going to require more transparency. Our 
democratic Government is viewed as a model in countries throughout the 
world. I just spent 2 weeks in the Middle East and Central Asia. They 
do business a lot differently. Payoffs, and so forth, are a standard 
practice in a lot of those parts of the world. We do it differently 
here. Perhaps that is another reason why this constitutional democracy 
has survived and, indeed, thrived for well over two centuries. The 
Founding Fathers established a government that was designed to put a 
check on power and represent the interests of all Americans, regardless 
of their station in life.
  So as we grapple with this issue of trying to put an influence on 
those who articulate a special interest, a narrowly defined interest, 
instead of an interest for what is referred to as the common wheel, the 
common good, then that is very much vital to restoring the balance of 
power in the functioning of our Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, first, let me praise our great majority 
leader and Senator McConnell, the minority leader, for bringing us 
together for a good start to the 110th Congress. The idea of a joint 
caucus, both parties coming together to send a signal that we were 
going to work together in the 110th Congress as we begin, was a very 
good step. I believe Senator Reid said we are now entering a season of 
hope and that we can move forward with hope for positive results in the 
110th Congress. Senator McConnell talked about how a government, even 
though it may be divided by the two parties and the executive branch, 
can be the kind of government that can bring about good results for the 
people of America. That was a very good statement as well. Citing what 
happened in the 1981 Reagan Social Security revision, that was an 
example of how a divided Government could get a result, as well as his 
speaking about the 1996 welfare-to-work reform. That was another good 
example of how we can get things done.
  I hope this Congress, in fact, gets to be known as the Congress that 
did, in fact, produce results for the American people and that we can 
work together to bring about those results.
  Today, as we begin the consideration of S. 1, it is one of those 
efforts in which we together are attempting to show results to the 
American people to restore the confidence of the American people in the 
institutions that belong to them.
  It is no coincidence that this is the first bill to come before this 
new Senate. This bill lays a foundation for everything that we hope to 
do in the months and years ahead. It does so by addressing three 
fundamental needs.
  First, it addresses the need to restore the people's faith in their 
Government. Indeed, in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, the 
conviction of former Congressman Duke Cunningham, and the various other 
allegations and investigations that have created this problem in 
Washington, DC, it is clear that the American people have lost faith in 
their Government.
  In case we didn't know it beforehand, that message was sent loudly 
and clearly by the voters in the November elections. With this bill, we 
have the opportunity to restore that lost faith without which we cannot 
effectively conduct the business of the people of America.
  Second, this bill also addresses the need to bring greater 
transparency to the Government of America. As Justice Brandeis said a 
long time ago:

       Sunshine is said to be the best of disinfectants.

  These words have particular resonance with the American people as we 
look to end today the practice of holding one-party conference 
committees; of placing strange and anonymous holds, not knowing where 
they come from, on legislation and nominations just because someone 
wants to prevent progress from taking place; and slipping provisions 
into conference reports that were not passed by either Chamber, some of 
these provisions being slipped into the conference reports in the dead 
of night. With this bill, we look to replace these secretive practices 
with a more open and transparent Congress for the American people.
  Third, we also need to take on the influence of special interests and 
to curb those influences of special interests on the Government of 
America.
  When the American people see a revolving door between Congress and 
the K Street lobbying firms, when they see Members of Congress and 
staff treated to gifts and travel paid by lobbyists, when they see 
legislation changed at the behest of a special interest, they 
understandably roll their eyes. With this bill, we look to curb the 
influence

[[Page S257]]

of special interests in favor of the people's interest because all of 
us were elected to represent the people first.
  This bill is not a perfect bill, and we will work this week to refine 
and improve the bill. For example, I would like to see the denial of 
Federal pensions to Members of Congress who are convicted of certain 
crimes. I am proud to support an amendment with Senator John Kerry 
which would do just that in this legislation. The likes of former 
Congressman Duke Cunningham and the bribery that occurred in that 
particular case should be the grounds for the denial of pensions to 
Federal Congressmen and Congresswomen.
  I would also like to see greater transparency in the committee 
process, and I will offer an amendment on that issue later this week.
  I also believe it is important to note that this bill touches on 
ethics in the executive branch. We know there has been so much focus in 
the public debate on how this deals only with the legislative branch of 
Government, but, in fact, this legislation will also end up creating a 
new program of Government independence and integrity in the executive 
branch.
  It will do so by extending the revolving door for very senior 
executive branch employees from 1 to 2 years and by expressing the 
sense of the Senate that any applicable restrictions on congressional 
branch employees should also apply to the executive and judicial 
branches of Government.
  We need to make sure that every branch of Government has strong 
ethics rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
accomplish that goal in the coming months. It is my hope that the 
relevant committees address these issues in the near future.
  Let me make a comment about this issue.
  The fact is, the House of Representatives is dealing with ethics as 
their first issue, and the Senate is dealing with ethics as our first 
issue. We are taking a very important step in the right direction, but 
at the end of the day, it is the loss of confidence of the people of 
America in their Government in Washington as a whole that we need to 
take a look at, and the issues we deal with here are only focused 
largely on the legislative branch of Government, but there are also a 
whole host of issues in the executive branch of Government that should 
require us to take a hard look at what it is that all of our Government 
officials are doing.
  At the end of the day, our goal should be to try to make sure the 
integrity of Government extends to all aspects of the Government and 
that the confidence of the people we all represent extends to a 
confidence in all of our Government. The only way we can do that is to 
make sure we have the highest ethical standards that apply to the 
Congress as well as to the White House and to the executive branch of 
Government.

  It is my sincere hope that the committees of jurisdiction, including 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security and other 
committees that will look at this issue, will also help us bring about 
that kind of cultivation with respect to how we look at integrity in 
Government.
  It isn't enough for us to clean out only a part of the barn in 
Washington, DC. I am a rancher and a farmer in terms of my upbringing. 
When you go in, you clean out the whole barn. Our effort is to clean up 
Washington, DC, and, if it is a committed effort on the part of both 
Democrats and Republicans, we need to make sure we are cleaning out the 
whole barn.
  Finally, it is important to make sure that we all recognize this bill 
is moving us forward in the right direction in a number of ways. It 
bans all gifts, and it bans meals and travel paid for by lobbyists. 
That is a ban that did not exist before this context. It is an 
important step in the right direction.
  Second, it requires public disclosure within 3 days of any hold 
placed on a nomination or on legislation. During the 109th Congress, 
Democrats and Republicans who were part of legislation we were trying 
to get through could not find out who was putting holds on legislation. 
That is not the way to do business. If a Senator has a problem with a 
bill, if they want to put a hold on a bill, they ought to tell their 
colleagues what it is they have a problem with, what is the substantive 
issue that causes that Senator a concern that requires him or her to 
put a hold on a bill.
  This is a very important procedural positive step forward for this 
institution, and I look forward to strongly supporting that part of the 
bill.
  Third is closing the revolving door between Congress and K Street by 
extending the cooling off period of Members of Congress and stiffening 
the rules regarding lobbying activity by senior staff members. It is an 
important rule that allows us to close that revolving door which has 
been a part of Washington, DC, for far too long.
  Fourth, this legislation requires that conference reports be made 
available to the public at least 48 hours before their consideration by 
the Senate. That way not only be the public of the United States of 
America but also the Members of this body will have an opportunity to 
study what is in the legislation and will be able to react so we do not 
enact legislation that is passed in the dead of night without people 
knowing on what they are voting.
  Fifth, the bill requires a list of earmarks in a bill, the identity 
of the Senators who propose them, and also identity of their essential 
Government purpose.
  For the last year, we have talked about earmark reform and the 
importance of moving forward with changes in the earmark process, which 
has been a part of this body probably since its inception, but making 
sure we know where those earmarks are coming from, who is proposing 
them, and what is the essential governmental purpose that is being 
addressed by that particular earmark.
  It is essential for us to be able to tell the American public what it 
is we are doing with taxpayers' dollars. I fully support the earmark 
proposals that are put forth in this legislation.
  As a member of the Senate Ethics Committee, I am also pleased to join 
with my colleagues in supporting the aspects of the bill that would do 
the following:
  First, it would require the Ethics Committee of the Senate to report 
on an annual basis with detailed statistics on the number of alleged 
violations and the status of complaints that are pending before the 
Ethics Committee of the Senate.
  Second, it would require the Ethics Committee that it conduct 
mandatory ethics training not only for Senators but also for all of our 
staffs who are affected by the decisions and the activities of our 
office on an ongoing basis.
  And, third, that we as a Senate move forward in the creation of an 
independent commission to make recommendations on the effectiveness of 
congressional ethics rules and lobbying disclosure laws.
  It is important to note that these changes are necessary, not because 
there is something inherently wrong or dishonorable about the process 
of petitioning the Government. They are important and they are 
necessary because the American people have lost faith in their 
Government and because our Government should be doing more to have a 
Government that is transparent and a Government that is responsive to 
the business of the people.
  I commend the leadership, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, members 
of the Rules Committee, my colleagues and friends from California and 
Utah who are the managers of this bill, and members of the Governmental 
Affairs and Homeland Security Committee for their work. This is very 
important legislation that is taking an important first step in 
restoring the faith of the American people in the integrity of their 
Government.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold the quorum call?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, if the Senator will withhold the requst for a 
quorum call, Mr. President, I note that it is almost 12:30 p.m. I ask 
that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

                          ____________________