[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S415-S441]
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 Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 3, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4 (to amendment No. 3), to strengthen 
     the gift and travel bans.
       DeMint amendment No. 11 (to amendment No. 3), to strengthen 
     the earmark reform.
       DeMint amendment No. 12 (to amendment No. 3), to clarify 
     that earmarks added to a conference report that are not 
     considered by the Senate or the House of Representatives are 
     out of scope.
       DeMint amendment No. 13 (to amendment No. 3), to prevent 
     government shutdowns.
       DeMint amendment No. 14 (to amendment No. 3), to protect 
     individuals from having their money involuntarily collected 
     and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
       Vitter/Inhofe amendment No. 9 (to amendment No. 3), to 
     place certain restrictions on the ability of the spouses of 
     Members of Congress to lobby Congress.
       Vitter amendment No. 10 (to amendment No. 3), to increase 
     the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure 
     requirements.
       Leahy/Pryor amendment No. 2 (to amendment No. 3), to give 
     investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to combat 
     public corruption.
       Gregg amendment No. 17 (to amendment No. 3), to establish a 
     legislative line item veto.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                            Amendment No. 11

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber to discuss DeMint 
amendment No. 11 which relates to earmark reform.
  First, let me say that I welcome the Senator's efforts to strengthen 
this bill. We certainly all have a mutual interest in making this 
process more transparent. Senator DeMint, in his amendment language, 
adopts the language passed by the House in several important ways. As 
we move through the process, we are going to work together to ensure 
that the earmark provisions are carefully crafted and as strong as 
possible.
  Unfortunately, overall the DeMint language is not ready for this 
bill. The DeMint amendment defines earmarks to include amounts provided 
to any entity, including both non-Federal and Federal entities. The 
Reid-McConnell definition which is before the Senate covers only non-
Federal entities. On its face, the DeMint language may sound 
reasonable. After all, I have no problem announcing to the world when I 
have secured funding for the Rock Island Arsenal in my State. But the 
DeMint language is actually unworkable because it is so broad.
  What does the Appropriations Committee do? It allocates funds among 
programs and activities. Every appropriations bill is a long list of 
funding priorities. In the DeMint amendment, every single appropriation 
in the bill--and there may be thousands in any given appropriations 
bill--would be subject to this new disclosure requirement, even though 
in most cases the money is not being earmarked for any individual 
entity. How did we reach this point in the debate?
  There is a concern expressed by some that there is an abuse of the 
earmark process. When you read the stories of some people who have been 
indicted, convicted, imprisoned because of earmarks, it is 
understandable. There was a corruption of the process. But as a member 
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I tell my colleagues that by 
and large there is a race to the press release. Once you put an earmark 
in to benefit someone in a bill, you are quick to announce it--at least 
I am because I have gone through a long process evaluating these 
requests and come up with what I think are high priorities. So there is 
transparency and there is disclosure.
  The purpose of our debate here is to consider reasonable changes in 
the rules to expand that disclosure. Senator DeMint is talking about 
something that goes way beyond the debate that led to this particular 
bill. We are not talking in his amendment about money that goes to non-
Federal entities--private companies, for example--or States or local 
units of government. Senator DeMint now tells us that we have to go 
through an elaborate process when we decide, say, within the Department 
of Defense bill that money in an account is going to a specific Federal 
agency or installation. That is an expansion which goes way beyond any 
abuse which has been reported that I know of. Frankly, it would make 
this a very burdensome responsibility.
  If I asked the chairman, for example, to devote more funds to the 
Food and Drug Administration to improve food safety--think of that, 
food safety, which is one of their responsibilities--that is 
automatically an earmark under the new DeMint amendment, subject to 
broad reporting requirements. No one can be shocked by the suggestion 
that the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for food safety. 
They share that responsibility, but it is one of theirs under the law. 
So if I am going to put more money into food safety, why is that being 
treated as an earmark which has to go through an elaborate process? I 
think that begs the question. Every request, every program, money for 
No Child Left Behind, for medical research at the National Cancer 
Institute, for salaries for soldiers, for combat pay for those serving 
in Iraq, for veterans health programs, every one of them is now 
considered at least suspect, if not an odious earmark, under the DeMint 
amendment. It is not workable. It goes too far.
  In other instances, the DeMint amendment does not go far enough. To 
pass this amendment at this time could, down the road, harm the 
Senate's efforts to achieve real earmark reform.
  Many of us on the Appropriations Committee happen to believe that the 
provisions in tax bills, changes in the Tax Code, can be just as 
beneficial to an individual or an individual company as any single 
earmark in an appropriations bill. If we are going to have transparency 
in earmark appropriations, I believe--and I hope my colleagues share 
the belief--that should also apply to tax favors, changes in the Tax 
Code to benefit an individual company or a handful of companies. The 
DeMint amendment does not go far enough in terms of covering these 
targeted tax benefits. The language already in the Reid-McConnell 
bipartisan bill strengthens the earmark provisions passed by the Senate 
last year by also covering targeted tax and trade benefits. The Reid-
McConnell language on targeted tax benefits is superior to the DeMint 
amendment. The DeMint amendment, in fact, weakens this whole aspect of 
targeted tax credits and their disclosure.

  Reid-McConnell covers ``any revenue provision that has practical 
effect of

[[Page S416]]

providing more favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or a 
limited group of taxpayers when compared with other similarly situated 
taxpayers.'' That is the language from which we are working. Consider 
what it says: favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or a 
limited group of taxpayers compared to others similarly situated. That 
is a pretty broad definition. It means that if you are setting out to 
give 5, 10, 15, or 20 companies a break and several hundred don't get 
the break, that is a targeted tax credit which requires more 
disclosure, more transparency.
  The DeMint amendment covers revenue-losing provisions that provide 
tax credits, deductions, exclusions, or preferences to 10 or fewer 
beneficiaries or contains eligibility criteria that are not the same 
for other potential beneficiaries. The Senate should not be writing a 
number such as 10 into this law or into the Senate rules, creating an 
incentive for those who want a tax break to find 11 beneficiaries to 
escape the DeMint amendment.
  The Reid-McConnell amendment establishes a definition with 
flexibility so that facts and circumstances of the particular tax 
provision can be considered. There may be instances when a tax benefit 
that helps 100 or even 1,000 beneficiaries should be considered a 
limited tax benefit. Our bill provides that. The DeMint amendment 
weakens it and means that more of these targeted tax credits will 
escape scrutiny.
  Second, in the interest of full disclosure, the Reid-McConnell 
approach requires that the earmark disclosure information be placed on 
the Internet 48 hours before consideration of the bills or reports that 
contain earmarks. The DeMint amendment does not have a similar 
provision. Why would he want to weaken the reporting requirement? That 
is, in fact, what he does. Under the DeMint amendment, information 
about earmarks must be posted 48 hours after it is received by the 
committee, not 48 hours before consideration of the bill. In the case 
of a fast-moving bill, it is possible that the information could be 
made public only after the vote has already been taken. So this 
provision actually weakens reporting requirements.
  Finally, it is important that the House and Senate have language that 
works for both bodies. Technical changes are probably needed in the 
current language in both bills, changes that may come about during the 
course of a conference. Adopting the imperfect House language 
wholesale, as Senator DeMint suggests, would make it more difficult for 
us to work out our differences in conference. The better course would 
be to address the final language in conference and not get locked into 
any particular words at this moment.
  We need strong reforms in the earmarking process. The Reid-McConnell 
bipartisan amendment does that. Unfortunately, DeMint amendment No. 11 
weakens it--first, in exempting more targeted tax credits instead of 
being more inclusive; second, in weakening reporting requirements 
already in this amendment; and finally, tying the hands of conferees by 
adopting House language that has already been enacted by that body.
  The Reid-McConnell substitute is an excellent first step. I am afraid 
the DeMint amendment does not improve on that work product but detracts 
from it. To adopt this amendment will only take us backward in this 
process. I urge the Senate to oppose the DeMint amendment No. 11. Let's 
keep working on this issue together on a bipartisan basis.


                            Amendment No. 13

  I would also like to discuss DeMint amendment No. 13. This amendment 
on the surface seems like a harmless amendment. Nobody wants a 
Government shutdown. But in truth, what amendment No. 13 does is 
encourage Congress to abdicate its appropriations responsibility and 
fund the Government on automatic pilot at the lowest levels of the 
previous year's budget or the House- and Senate-passed levels. That is 
what we are in the process of doing for this fiscal year. It is 
painful. But the results could be disastrous if it becomes the policy 
of our country. Funding the Government by continuing resolutions does 
not allow Members to adequately work for a consensus to adjust funding 
for new challenges and changing priorities. The responsibility to 
appropriate was duly outlined for the legislative branch by our 
forefathers in our Constitution. It is a duty we should not abandon by 
handing it over to some automatic process.
  The Senator from South Carolina has argued that this amendment is 
needed so that Congress should not feel the pressure to finish 
appropriations bills on time. He is plain wrong. If there is anything 
we need, it is the pressure to finish on time. If we are under that 
pressure, it is more likely we will respond to it. But if we are going 
to glide into some automatic pilot CR that absolves us from our 
responsibility of passing appropriations bills, we will find ourselves 
in future years facing the same mess we face this year, when many of 
the most important appropriations bills were not enacted before the 
last Congress adjourned.
  Our constituents look to us to complete our appropriations bills on 
time, not make it easy to govern by stopgap measures that underfund 
important priorities such as education, transportation, and health 
care. Incidentally, the last time Congress completed its appropriations 
process on time was the 1995 fiscal year. Rather than abdicate our 
responsibility, we need to focus on fulfilling that duty under the 
Constitution. I believe this DeMint amendment is not responsible. It 
signals our willingness to throw in the towel before the fight has even 
started.
  I urge my fellow Senators to oppose this amendment, send a clear 
message to the American people that we are ready to accept our 
responsibilities and not avoid them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am not quite prepared to make all of my 
remarks about the amendments, but I did happen to be in the Chamber, 
and Senator Durbin was kind enough to open the discussion on two of my 
amendments, which I greatly appreciate. I am somewhat disappointed, 
however, that my colleague is not completely informed about these 
amendments.
  I will start with the amendment that attempts to more accurately 
define what an earmark is. My colleague went to great pains to 
continuously describe this as the DeMint amendment, the DeMint 
language. Unfortunately, I am not sure if he knows, but this is the 
language which the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has put in 
this lobbying reform bill in order to make it more honest and 
transparent. I believe she has a very thoughtful approach. She 
campaigned on this, along with a number of Democrats and Republicans. 
We do need to disclose and make transparent every favor we do for an 
entity.
  I am beginning to get disappointed in this process because I did 
believe in a bipartisan way that we were going to come together to try 
to do things to show the American people that we were going to spend 
their money in an honest way and that was not wasteful. But as we look 
back on some of the scandals, the first one that comes to mind, 
obviously, is the Abramoff scandal--using Indian money to try to buy 
influence on Capitol Hill.
  Yesterday there was a thoughtful amendment by Senator Vitter that 
would have attempted to get the Indian tribes to play by the same rules 
everyone else in America plays by, that they have regulated 
contributions that are disclosed. The reason we had the scandal with 
Abramoff is the Indian tribes are not regulated by the Federal Election 
Commission. They can give unlimited amounts, unaccounted for, and it 
corrupted our process. The amendment yesterday very simply said: Let's 
just have everyone follow the same rules. Yet that was voted down, 
primarily by my Democratic colleagues. I hope they will rethink that. 
We would like to bring that amendment back to the floor and make sure 
there is adequate discussion because it is hard for me to believe that 
anyone who wants to clear up the corruption in Washington would 
overlook that a big part of the corruption was caused by unlimited 
donations by lobbyists from Indian tribes.
  Now we have another problem. We are talking about earmark reform. We 
use language here many times in the Chamber that I don't think 
Americans understand. When we talk about earmarks, we are talking 
usually about lobbyists who come and appeal on behalf of some 
organization or business

[[Page S417]]

or whatever for us to do them a favor with taxpayer money. It may be a 
municipality that wants a bridge. It may be a defense contractor that 
wants a big contract from us. And if we put that money in an 
appropriations bill designated just for them, it is an earmark. That is 
a Federal earmark. Nancy Pelosi had the wisdom to see that a lot of the 
problems we have had came from lobbyists asking for favors that went to 
Federal, as well as State, and other types of earmarks.

  What other corruption comes to mind as we think about last year? Duke 
Cunningham. The corruption there was a Federal earmark. The underlying 
bill we are discussing today would not have included that. It would not 
have been disclosed. Senator Durbin said that should not be disclosed, 
when most of the problems that we have come from that particular type 
of earmark.
  I think if you look at this in the big picture, we are talking about 
trying to let the American people know how we are spending their money. 
When we designate their money as a favor to different people and 
entities across this country, we want to let them know what we are 
doing so we can defend it, so they can see it. But what is a dirty 
little secret in the Senate and in the House is that while we are 
making this big media display of reforming earmarks and lobbying, 95 
out of every 100 earmarks are in the report language of bills that come 
out of conference which are not included in the current discussion of 
transparency for earmarks.
  So the case my dear friend Senator Durbin has made today is that we 
want to disclose these particular favors for 5 out of every 100 
earmarks in this Senate. That is not honest transparency. If we are 
going to do it, let's look at what the new Speaker of the House has 
asked us to do. If we are going to go through this process and if we 
are going to change the laws and try to tell the American people that 
now you can see what we are doing, let's don't try to pull the wool 
over their eyes. Speaker Pelosi is right. Many in this Chamber know I 
don't often agree with Speaker Pelosi, but she is the new Speaker. One 
of her first and highest priorities was to do this ethics reform bill 
right. At the top of the list is, if we are going to talk about the 
transparency to the American people, let's be honest and show them the 
way we are directing the spending of their money. I agree with her. I 
am here to defend her language on behalf of the Democratic colleagues 
on the House side that let's not try to pull the wool over the American 
people's eyes and tell them we are cleaning up these scandals when what 
we are doing here would not have affected the Abramoff scandal, the 
Cunningham scandal, or any of the scandals we have talked about in the 
culture of corruption in this Congress. Let's at least be honest with 
the reform we are saying is going to clean up this place. We are not 
being honest now. Speaker Pelosi has the right idea.
  Let me mention one other thing, the other amendment my colleague was 
nice enough to bring up. It is what we call the automatic continuing 
resolution. I have been in Congress now for 8 years. This is my ninth 
year. Every year, we get toward the end of the year and we have not 
gotten all of our appropriations done; it comes down to the last minute 
and they are saying we have to vote on this and we have to pass it or 
we are going to shut down the Government. So we create this crisis. 
Then we don't know what is in all of the bills. They are just coming 
out of conference and we have to vote on them, and most of us go home 
in December and find out about all of the earmarks and the favors that 
were put in the bills. We find it out later because we are not even 
given time to read them. We create this crisis and force people to vote 
on bills when they don't know what is in them. We are forced to vote on 
things that should not be in them so we won't close down the 
Government.
  We need to stop playing this game at the end of the year that forces 
us to accept what lobbyists and Members and staff have worked out that 
we don't even know about. If we are serious about decreasing the power 
of lobbyists in this place, we need to take the pressure off passing 
bad bills at the end of every year. This is a very simple idea.
  You will notice, despite what has been said, we passed a continuing 
resolution at the end of last year and didn't pass our appropriation 
bills. Of course, as you look around, you see the country is still 
operating just fine. The thing we don't have is 10,000 new earmarks. I 
would make the case we need a system that if we are not able to have 
ample debate and discussion about appropriations, we don't have all 
this fanfare about closing down the Government every year and scaring 
our senior citizens and our veterans that something is not going to 
come that they need. Let's have a simple provision that if we cannot 
get our work done and agree on what needs to be done and what should be 
in these bills, then we will have a continuing resolution until we can 
work it out. We will fund everything at last year's level, so that 
there is no crisis, there is just responsibility.
  That is what is missing here. When we put things into crisis mode, we 
cannot see what needs to be seen, or tell America what needs to be told 
about these bills, and we pass bills and find out later we have done 
things that embarrass us and diminish the future of our country.
  This is a simple amendment. I am very disappointed in my Democratic 
colleague who wants to help us, I believe sincerely, clean up the way 
lobbying works in this place by making things more transparent to the 
American people, but these two amendments--one will disclose all 
earmarks and the other will take the crisis out of every year and allow 
us to pass responsible legislation.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say later and I am sure other 
Members will also before these amendments come to a vote. 
Unfortunately, I have been told that my colleagues don't even want 
these bills to come to a vote. They want to try to table them so we 
will limit the debate.
  I will reserve the rest of my time and yield the floor right now, and 
we will discuss more about these amendments after lunch.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Texas wishes 
to speak. I will only be a minute.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to 
vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 11, to be followed by a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 13, regardless of the outcome of the 
vote with respect to amendment No. 11; that there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided before the first vote and between the votes; 
further, that at 12:30 p.m. today, Senator Byrd be recognized to speak 
for up to 25 minutes, and that Senator Kyl then be recognized for up to 
15 minutes; and that no second-degree amendments be in order to either 
amendment prior to the vote. Senator DeMint would have up to 45 minutes 
under his control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to clarify that the time Senator 
DeMint has utilized would be counted against the 45 minutes under his 
control.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is my understanding.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                   amendments nos. 24 and 25 en bloc

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be laid aside, and I send two amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) proposes amendments 
     numbered 24 and 25, en bloc, to amendment No. 3.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S418]]

  The amendments are as follows:


                            amendment no. 24

(Purpose: To provide for better transparency and enhanced Congressional 
    oversight of spending by clarifying the treatment of matter not 
              committed to the conferees by either House)

       On page 3, strike line 9 through line 11 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--A point of order may be made by any 
     Senator against any item contained in a conference report 
     that includes or consists of any matter not committed to the 
     conferees by either House.
       (1) For the purpose of this section, ``matter not committed 
     to the conferees by either House'' shall be limited to any 
     matter which:
       (A) in the case of an appropriations Act, is a provision 
     containing subject matter outside the jurisdiction of the 
     Senate Committee on Appropriations;
       (B) would, if offered as an amendment on the Senate floor, 
     be considered ``general legislation'' under Rule XVI of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate;
       (C) would be considered ``not germane'' under Rule XXII of 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate; or
       (D) consists of a specific provision containing a specific 
     level of funding for any specific account, specific program, 
     specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific 
     funding was provided for such specific account, specific 
     program, specific project, or specific activity in the 
     measure originally committed to the conferees by either 
     House.
       (2) For the purpose of this section, ``matter not committed 
     to the conferees by either House'' shall not include any 
     changes to any numbers, dollar amounts, or dates, or to any 
     specific accounts, specific programs, specific projects, or 
     specific activities which were originally provided for in the 
     measure committed to the conferees by either House.


                            amendment no. 25

 (Purpose: To ensure full funding for the Department of Defense within 
   the regular appropriations process, to limit the reliance of the 
  Department of Defense on supplemental appropriations bills, and to 
       improve the integrity of the Congressional budget process)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENATE FIREWALL FOR DEFENSE SPENDING.

       (a) For purposes of Section 301 and 302 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the levels of new budget 
     authority and outlays and the allocations for the Committees 
     on Appropriations shall be further divided and separately 
     enforced under Section 302(f) by--
       (1) Defense allocation.--The amount of discretionary 
     spending assumed in the budget resolution for the defense 
     function (050); and
       (2) Nondefense allocation.--The amount of discretionary 
     spending assumed for all other functions of the budget.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                   Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 En Bloc

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) proposes amendments 
     numbered 26 and 27, en bloc, to amendment No. 3.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                            amendment no. 26

 (Purpose: To require full separate disclosure of any earmarks in any 
   bill, joint resolution, report, conference report or statement of 
                               managers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``(a) In General.--It shall not be in order to consider a 
     bill, joint resolution, report, conference report, or 
     statement of managers unless the following--
       ``(a) a list of each earmark, limited tax benefit or tariff 
     benefit in the bill, joint resolution, report, conference 
     report, or statement of managers along with:
       ``(1) its specific budget, contract or other spending 
     authority or revenue impact;
       ``(2) an identification of the Member of Members who 
     proposed the earmark, targeted tax benefit, or targeted 
     tariff benefit; and
       ``(3) an explanation of the essential governmental purpose 
     for the earmark, targeted tax benefit, or targeted tariff 
     benefit, including how the earmark, targeted tax benefit, or 
     targeted tariff benefit advances the `general Welfare' of the 
     United States of America;
       ``(b) the total number of earmarks, limited tax benefits or 
     tariff benefits in the bill, joint resolution, report, 
     conference report, or statement of managers; and
       ``(c) a calculation of the total budget, contract or other 
     spending authority or revenue impact of all the congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits or tariff benefits in the 
     bill, joint resolution, report, conference report, or 
     statement of managers;

     is available along with such bill, joint resolution, report, 
     conference report, or statement of managers to all Members 
     and the list is made available to the general public by means 
     of placement on any website within the senate.gov domain, the 
     gpo.gov domain, or through the THOMAS system on the loc.gov 
     domain at least 2 calendar days before the Senate proceeds to 
     it.''.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 27

   (Purpose: To require 3 calendar days notice in the Senate before 
                       proceeding to any matter)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION.

       (a) In General.--No legislative matter or measure may be 
     considered in the Senate unless--
       (1) a Senator gives notice of his intent to proceed to that 
     matter or measure and such notice and the full text of that 
     matter or measure are printed in the Congressional Record and 
     placed on each Senator's desk at least 3 calendar days in 
     which the Senate is in session prior to proceeding to the 
     matter or measure;
       (2) the Senate proceeds to that matter or measure not later 
     than 30 calendar days in which the Senate is in session after 
     having given notice in accordance with paragraph (1); and
       (3) the full text of that matter or measure is made 
     available to the general public in searchable format by means 
     of placement on any website within the senate.gov domain, the 
     gpo.gov domain, or through the THOMAS system on the loc.gov 
     domain at least 2 calendar days before the Senate proceeds to 
     that matter or measure.
       (b) Calendar.--The Secretary of the Senate shall establish 
     for both the Senate Calendar of Business and the Senate 
     Executive Calendar a separate section entitled ``Notices of 
     Intent to Proceed or Consider''. Each section shall include 
     the name of each Senator filing a notice under this section, 
     the title or a description of the legislative measure or 
     matter to which the Senator intends to proceed, and the date 
     the notice was filed.
       (c) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of \3/5\ 
     of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of 
     \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, 
     shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the 
     Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not debate the amendments at this 
time. I appreciate the courtesies extended by the managers. I will come 
back later when it is appropriate to debate these particular 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand now might be a convenient 
time for the Senate to consider some debate on the amendments I have 
just offered, Nos. 26 and 27.
  I think the preeminent value, when we talk about ethics debate, that 
we ought to be focusing on is transparency. It has been said time and 
time again that the old saying is ``sunlight is perhaps the best 
disinfectant of all.'' The fact is, the more Congress does on behalf of 
the American people that is transparent and can be reported and can be 
considered by average Americans in how they determine and evaluate our 
performance here, the better, as far as I am concerned.
  I am proud to be a strong advocate for open government and greater 
transparency. Senator Pat Leahy, now the chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and I have been cosponsors of significant reform 
of our open government laws. We only had modest success last Congress. 
We were able to get a bill voted out of the Judiciary Committee. But it 
is my hope, given the sort of bipartisan spirit in which we are 
starting the 110th Congress and given Senator Leahy's strong commitment 
to open government, as well as my own, that we will be able to make 
good progress there.
  This amendment No. 27 is all about greater transparency that is 
healthy for our democracy and essential if we are to govern with 
accountability and good faith. I offer this amendment with the goal of 
shining a little bit more light on the legislative process in this body 
and actually giving all Members of the Senate an ability to do their 
job better.
  Specifically, this amendment would require that before the Senate 
proceeds

[[Page S419]]

to any matter, that each Senator receive a minimum of 3 days' notice 
and that, more importantly, the full text of what we will consider will 
be made available to the public before we actually begin our work on 
it.
  What happens now is that in the waning hours of any Congress, we have 
a procedure--known well to the Members here but unknown to the public, 
perhaps--known as hotlining bills. In other words, presumably 
noncontroversial matters can be so-called hotlined, and that is placed 
on the Senate's calendar and voted out essentially by unanimous 
consent.
  The problem is this mechanism, which is designed to facilitate the 
Senate's work and move relatively noncontroversial matters, is 
increasingly the subject of abuse. For example, in the 109th Congress, 
there were 4,122 bills introduced in the Senate. In the House there 
were 6,436 bills. Of course, many of these bills run hundreds of pages 
in length. The problem is, as I alluded to a moment ago, in the final 
weeks of the 109th Congress, I was told there were 125 matters called 
up before the Senate for consideration, many of which included costs to 
the taxpayers of millions of dollars, including an astonishing 64 bills 
in the final day and into the wee hours of Saturday morning before we 
adjourned. In fact, as the chart I have here demonstrates, in the last 
5 days of the 109th Congress, there was a total of 125 bills hotlined. 
As I mentioned, some of these are relatively noncontroversial matters, 
but some of them spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
  I would think that at a very minimum Senators would want an 
opportunity to do due diligence when it comes to looking at the 
contents of this legislation and determining whether, in fact, it is 
noncontroversial and in the public interest or whether, on the 
contrary, someone is literally trying to slip something through in the 
waning hours of the Congress in a way that avoids the kind of public 
scrutiny that is important to passing good legislation and making good 
policy.
  Mr. President, I have in my hands a letter in support of this 
amendment from an organization called ReadtheBill.org, which I ask 
unanimous consent be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know this perhaps seems like a small 
thing, but small things can have dramatic consequences.
  Let me give an example. Senator X introduces a bill called the Clean 
Water Access Act sometime this year. For whatever reason, this bill 
doesn't get a hearing or the hearing is held perhaps with just a modest 
number of Members actually attending--in other words, it doesn't get a 
lot of attention. The bill is one of the thousands of bills introduced. 
And let's say my staff or your staff, Mr. President, or other Members' 
staff don't really have this bill on the list of priorities, of things 
to do; it is not one of the most urgent priorities because it looks as 
though perhaps there is not a lot of interest in the legislation. The 
bill never gets a vote in committee or on the floor, so Senator X 
decides: I have an idea. I will hotline the bill at the end of the 
year, at the very end of the Congress in the last few hours. What this 
amendment would do would be to impose a very commonsense requirement--
let's give adequate notice that this is legislation which Senator X 
intends to move--so that the appropriate scrutiny and consideration may 
be given to the bill.
  Of course, a notice goes out under the current rule, and the 
Senator's staff alerts the Senator to some concern that unless that 
happens, it passes by default. That is right, this is essentially an 
opt-out system. If the Senator does not object within an hour or two, 
the bill goes out by unanimous agreement.
  My proposal is that there be simply a modest notice period before the 
Senate proceeds to a measure for Senators and their staff to review the 
legislation and so the American people and various groups that may have 
an interest in it could scrutinize it before we actually consider it 
and pass it in the waning hours, perhaps, of a Congress. I don't know 
who could really have a legitimate objection to such a requirement. I 
look forward to hearing from any of my colleagues who have some 
concerns about it, and perhaps I can address those concerns and we can 
work together to pass this important, although simple and 
straightforward, amendment.
  I believe this amendment is certainly common sense and a good 
government and open government approach, which is conducive to allowing 
us to do our job better. So I ask my colleagues for their enthusiastic 
support, and maybe if not their enthusiastic support, at least their 
vote in support of this amendment at the appropriate time.


                            Amendment No. 26

  Mr. President, I have also offered Senate amendment No. 26. This is 
another amendment designed to offer greater sunshine and this time on 
the earmark process. This is an amendment which I have offered in the 
spirit that Senator DeMint, the junior Senator from South Carolina, has 
offered but with a little bit of additional twist that I would like to 
explain.
  The current bill requires that all future legislation include a list 
of earmarks and the names of the Senators who requested them. Again, I 
know we talk in terms of legislative-ese and, of course, an earmark is 
something not otherwise provided for within the Federal appropriations 
bills but is specifically requested by a Member of Congress--a Senator 
or a Congressman--to be included.
  Frankly, there are some earmarks that are very positive and very much 
in the public interest, but there are others that have been the subject 
of abuse, and I don't need to go into that in any great detail.
  It is a fact that the American people have grown very concerned about 
the abuse of earmarks here, again, primarily because there is not 
adequate scrutiny, adequate sunshine on this process, causing them 
grave concerns about the integrity of the entire appropriations 
process.
  My amendment would add a requirement that the budgetary impact for 
each earmark be included, as well as a requirement that the total 
number of earmarks and their total budgetary impact be identified and 
disclosed. The goal is that when we are considering legislation, we 
will have a summary document that details the number of earmarks, the 
total cost of those earmarks, and a list of the earmarks, along with 
their principal sponsor. I believe this will allow us, again, to do our 
job more diligently and with greater ease.
  We will also create a fixed baseline from which we can proceed in the 
future and will further allow the American public, as well as our own 
staff, to be able to analyze the impact of these earmarks on the 
budgeting process.
  Consider that the Congressional Research Service studies earmarks 
each year and identifies earmarks in each appropriations bill. Through 
that study, one can see both the total number of earmarks and the total 
dollar value of those earmarks have grown significantly over the last 
decade. The total number of earmarks, for example, doubled from 1994 to 
2005, and the number appears to likely go up in 2006 as well. The 
problem is that getting this data after voting on the legislation is 
not particularly helpful after the fact. By requiring that all 
legislation contain a list of each earmark, the cost of each earmark, 
and the total number and cost of earmarks in the legislation as a 
whole, we empower our staffs and, more importantly, the American 
people, and ourselves to make better decisions.
  As I said, this is not a broadside attack against all earmarks. Some 
earmarks are good government, but not all earmarks are good government. 
What this would do is give us the information we need to evaluate them, 
to have some empirical baseline we can use to evaluate how this impacts 
Federal spending and the integrity of the appropriations process.
  There is one other little element of this amendment I would like to 
highlight. This amendment would also require an explanation of the 
essential governmental purpose for the earmark or a targeted tax 
benefit or targeted tax tariff benefit, including how the earmark 
targeted tax benefit or targeted tariff benefit advances the general 
welfare of the United States of America. This requirement--again, 
something I think most people would assume would be part of the 
analysis

[[Page S420]]

and deliberative process Congress would undertake anyway--is an 
important reform for the Congress, and it is certainly appropriate on 
the subject of ethics reform.
  Take, for example, these situations: In the fiscal year 2004 budget, 
there was a $725,000 earmark for something called the Please Touch 
Museum; $200,000 of Federal taxpayers' money was appropriated by an 
earmark for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Even those who like rock 
and roll may question the appropriateness of taxpayers' money being 
spent to subsidize the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Mr. President, 
$100,000 was spent for the International Storytelling Center.
  In 2005, $250,000 was spent in an earmark for the Country Music Hall 
of Fame. I myself am partial to country music. I like country music, 
but I think many might question whether it is appropriate that Federal 
taxpayers' dollars be spent by an earmark, here again largely anonymous 
because it is not required to be disclosed who the Senator is under 
current law, who has requested it, but a quarter of a million dollars 
of taxpayers' money has been spent for that purpose.
  Another example: $150,000 for the Grammy Foundation and $150,000 for 
the Coca-Cola Space Science Center.
  These are just a couple of quick examples, but I think they help make 
the point; that is, under the status quo, there is simply not enough 
information, not enough sunshine shining on the appropriations process 
and particularly the earmark process which has been the subject of so 
much controversy, and yes, including some scandal leading up to this 
last election on November 7. If there is one certain message I think 
all of us got on November 7, it is that the American people want their 
Government to work for them and not for special interests.
  One of the best things we can do, rather than passing new rules, is 
to shine more sunlight on the process. With more sunlight comes greater 
accountability, and I think in many ways it provides a self-correcting 
mechanism. In other words, people are not going to be doing things they 
think they can sneak through in secret out in the open. So it has the 
added benefit of sort of a self-policing or self-correcting mechanism 
as well.
  So I would commend both of these amendments for the Senate's 
consideration. At the appropriate time, I will ask for a vote, working, 
of course, with the floor managers on this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                              ReadtheBill.org,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2007.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: ReadtheBill.org Education Fund 
     commends you for your leadership in proposing an amendment to 
     S. 1 that would prohibit floor consideration of legislation 
     and conference reports before senators and the public had 
     more time to read them. If implemented in Senate rules, this 
     Cornyn amendment would be a significant improvement over 
     current Senate rules, and over Senate practice during the 
     109th Congress.
       ReadtheBill.org respects the openness of the sponsors of S. 
     1 to additional improvements on the floor. As proposed, S. 1 
     would amend Senate rule XXVIII to prohibit consideration of 
     conference reports before they have been publicly available 
     online for 48 hours. S. 1 would improve on current Senate 
     rules. However, S. 1 would NOT cover legislative measures or 
     matters on their first consideration by the Senate (as 
     opposed to final conference reports). This is a major failing 
     of S. 1. It's crucial to find and fix questionable provisions 
     early in the legislative process. By the time a bill emerges 
     from conference committee in its final form, it can be too 
     late to fix even its worst provisions. Yes, the conference 
     report can be posted online. But a conference report can 
     gather the political momentum of a runaway train. Posting the 
     manifest for each train car may reveal a sinister or illicit 
     cargo. But it's too late to do more than wave an arm before 
     the train is long gone.
       That is why it is so important to take time to read bills 
     early in the legislative process, before their first floor 
     consideration by the Senate. The Cornyn amendment would cover 
     ALL measures or matters (but no amendments), prohibiting 
     their consideration until they had been printed in the 
     Congressional Record for three calendar days and posted 
     publicly online for two calendar days. ReadtheBill.org 
     endorses the substance of the Cornyn amendment.
       The Cornyn amendment would be a vital step toward 
     ReadtheBill.org's ultimate goal of amending the standing 
     rules of the Senate and House to require legislation and 
     conference reports to be posted online for 72 hours before 
     floor debate. As work on this bill continues, ReadtheBill.org 
     looks forward to working closely with you to craft the most 
     practical, enforceable amendment that moves toward this goal.
       Non-partisan and focused only on process, ReadtheBill.org 
     is the leading national organization promoting open floor 
     deliberations in Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rafael DeGennaro,
                                              Founder & President.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in general, so I ask 
unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in general about the bill, 
not on the specific amendments, about what I think we are doing and the 
importance, frankly, of what we are doing. We are talking, of course, 
about ethics, about how we function within this body, and I hope we can 
keep that in mind. We are not talking about Federal law. We are not 
talking about rules and laws dealing with contributions. We are talking 
about how we operate within this body.
  I happen to be a member of the Ethics Committee, and I have been very 
impressed, frankly, with what we are doing now. That is not to say we 
can't do some more, and indeed we should, but the fact is we have 
really gone along fairly well here. We haven't had any real problems 
particularly. We are reacting largely to some of the problems that have 
happened on the other side of the Capitol, and they could happen here, 
so they are appropriate. So I believe we need to evaluate where we are 
now with the rules and regulations we have with the Ethics Committee, 
which is designed to enforce them, and try to maintain our focus on 
those kinds of things.
  I think we have gotten into things that become Federal law in terms 
of, for instance, political contributions. Well, that is really not an 
ethics issue; that is a Federal issue with relation to what is done 
there. So it seems to me the real overriding opportunity for us is to 
increase the transparency of how we function and the accountability and 
to spend more time with the Members and with the staff in terms of 
familiarizing ourselves with what the rules are. We have lots of rules. 
Quite frankly, as I came onto this committee, I was a little impressed 
with all there is that most of us haven't had much time or opportunity 
to take a look at.
  So really what we need is transparency and accountability, and that 
is what we are doing. I am pleased that we are, but I want to suggest 
that we keep in mind the role of what we are doing, the role of ethics, 
and try to maintain some limits on the kinds of things we do and hold 
it to what we are doing. As I said, our record has been pretty good. I 
think the key is transparency and accountability, so I hope we can hold 
it to that.
  I think we need to understand that even though there have been things 
that have happened in the Capitol that we don't like, the fact is the 
people who have done most of those things, many of them, are in jail. 
They have acted against the law. The Jack Abramoff thing, which has 
brought much of this about, was wrong and bad and has been dealt with 
and is being dealt with. I think we need to keep that in mind and try 
to define the difference between ethics and behavior here and legal 
activities that affect everyone.
  So again, I say ethics is something for which each of us is 
responsible. As representatives of our people, we are responsible for 
it. So if we have transparency, that is one of the keys. And we should 
understand that what we are doing is dealing with ethics rules. When 
this is all over, we ought to be able to take another look at the total 
of our rules and hold what we are doing here on the floor to that 
effort. We can do that.
  There are a good many reforms in S. 1, and I am pleased we are 
talking about earmarks, which is one topic of reform. There needs to be 
more public information. There needs to be more information to Members 
as to what earmarks are. On the other hand, if I want to represent 
things that are important to my State or your State or anyone else's 
State, we need from time to time to have an opportunity to suggest that 
here is an issue in this budget

[[Page S421]]

which needs to be dealt with. Now, it needs to be done early on. It 
needs to be transparent. Everyone needs to know about it. We need to 
avoid the idea of putting things in during the conference committee 
meetings. After all, Members' opportunities have passed. That is wrong. 
But I think the idea that Members have an opportunity to have some 
input into the distribution of funding for their States is reasonable. 
So I think, again, transparency is the real notion, and the conference 
reports ought to be available on the Internet.
  Banning gifts, of course, is good. I think we need to be a little 
careful about what gifts are and whom they are from.
  I just had an opportunity to meet with someone who is a realtor in 
Wyoming. He came in to talk about problems for realtors. He is not a 
lobbyist; he is a realtor. Now, am I supposed to be a little careful to 
talk to somebody from Wyoming? How else am I going to know what the 
issues are for the various groups? Even though they have an association 
and he is probably a member of it, he is not a lobbyist. So I think we 
need to be sure we identify some of the differences that are involved.
  We ought to talk about holds. I think there is nothing wrong with 
having a distribution of what the holds are when we are putting them 
together in Congress and then putting them in the Congressional Record. 
Again, that is something which should be public.

  Travel. I think there is nothing wrong, with major travel, with 
having some sort of preapproval from the Ethics Committee. That is a 
reasonable thing to do. We each have different problems with travel. 
Some States are quite different from others. Charters can be made to 
different places, so we need to have some flexibility there. Again, I 
say one of the keys is to have some annual ethics training, some annual 
ethics information so people know what it is all about. I would venture 
to say that before this discussion started, if you talked about what is 
in our ethics rules, most of us wouldn't be able to tell you much about 
them. We need to do more of that.
  There needs to be public disclosure of lobbying, there is no 
question, and that is a good thing and we need to do that.
  The idea of an independent ethics office troubles me a good deal. We 
are talking about our behavior among ourselves as Members, and the idea 
of having some non-Member office overseeing our operation just doesn't 
seem to make sense to me. If any of you have not had the opportunity to 
see all of the things that our Ethics Committee staff goes through, I 
wish you would take a look at it. There is a great deal that goes on.
  So in sum, I am generally saying that I hope--and I think our leaders 
on this issue have done this--we stay with what it is we are seeking to 
do; that is, take a look at our rules and regulations and how we abide 
by them, how we understand them, how we enforce them, and how we have 
opportunities to see them, and that there is transparency from them. 
That is what we are talking about. When we start getting off into so 
many things that really are much beyond ethics and get into the laws--
for instance, as I said, campaign contributions--that is another issue. 
It is a good issue, but it is not this issue. So I hope we are able to 
do that.
  Those are the points I wanted to make. We are going to be going 
forward, and I am glad we are. I hope we don't spend too much time on 
this because I think our real challenge is to focus on what it is we 
are really seeking to do and not let us spend a lot of time on things 
that are inappropriately in this bill. Our main goal, it seems to me, 
is greater transparency, a set of rules we can understand, the 
opportunity to know what those are, and then, of course, to have an 
opportunity within our own jurisdiction to enforce them.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized for up to 25 minutes.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last night in his address to the Nation, the 
President called for a ``surge'' of 20,000 additional U.S. troops to 
help secure Baghdad against the violence that has consumed it. 
Unfortunately, such a plan is not the outline of a brave new course, as 
we were told, but a tragic commitment to an already failed policy; not 
a bold new strategy but a rededication to a course that has proven to 
be a colossal blunder on every count.
  The President never spoke words more true than when he said, ``The 
situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people.'' But the 
President, once again, failed to offer a realistic way forward. 
Instead, he gave us more of his stale and tired ``stay the course'' 
prescriptions. The President espoused a strategy of ``clear, hold, and 
build''--a doctrine of counterinsurgency that one of our top 
commanders, GEN David Petraeus, helped to formulate. Clear, hold, and 
build involves bringing to bear a large number of troops in an area, 
clearing it of insurgents, holding it secure for long enough to let 
reconstruction take place. But what the President did not say last 
night is that, according to General Petraeus and his own military 
experts, this strategy of ``clear, hold, and build'' requires a huge 
number of troops--a minimum of 20 combat troops for every 1,000 
civilians in the area. If we apply that doctrine to Baghdad's 6 million 
people, it means that at least 120,000 troops will be needed to secure 
Baghdad alone. Right now, we have about 70,000 combat troops stationed 
all throughout Iraq. Even if they were all concentrated in the city of 
Baghdad, along with the 20,000 new troops that the President is calling 
for, we would still fall well short of what is needed.
  But let us assume that the brave men and women of the U.S. military 
are able to carry out this Herculean task and secure Baghdad against 
the forces that are spiraling it into violence. What is to keep those 
forces from regrouping in another town, another province, even another 
country--strengthening, festering, and waiting until the American 
soldiers leave to launch their bloody attacks again? It brings to mind 
the ancient figure of Sisyphus, who was doomed to push a boulder up a 
mountainside for all of eternity, only to have it roll back down as 
soon as he reached the top. As soon as he would accomplish his task, it 
would begin again, and this would go on endlessly. I fear that we are 
condemning our brave soldiers to a similar fate, hunting down 
insurgents in one city or one province only to watch them pop up in 
another. For how long will U.S. troops be asked to shoulder this 
burden?
  Over 3,000 American soldiers have already been killed in Iraq; over 
22,000 have been wounded. Staggering. Hear me--staggering. And 
President Bush now proposes to send 20,000 more Americans into the line 
of fire beyond the 70,000 already there.
  The cost of this war of choice to American taxpayers is now estimated 
to be over $400 billion. That means $400 for every minute since Jesus 
Christ was born. That is a lot of money.
  Hear me now. Let me say that, again. The cost to American taxpayers 
of this war of choice is now estimated to be over $400 billion, and the 
number continues to rise. When I say number, I am talking about your 
taxpayer dollars. That ain't chicken feed. One wonders how much 
progress we could have made in improving education or resolving our 
health care crisis or strengthening our borders or reducing our 
national debt or any number of pressing issues with that amount of 
money. Man, we are talking about big dollars. And the President 
proposes spending more money, sending more money down that drain.
  On every count, an escalation of 20,000 troops is a misguided, 
costly, unwise course of action. I said at the beginning we ought not 
go into Iraq. I said that, and I was very loud and clear in saying it. 
I stood with 22 other Senators. I said from the beginning we ought not 
to go into Iraq. We had no business there. That nation did not attack 
us, did it? I said from the beginning I am not going down that road and 
I didn't and I am not going to now.

[[Page S422]]

This is not a solution. This is not a march toward ``victory.''
  The President's own military advisers have indicated we do not have 
enough troops for this tragedy to be successful. It will put more 
Americans in harm's way than there already are. It will cost more in 
U.S. taxpayers' money--your money. You, who are looking through those 
lenses, looking at the Senate Chamber, hear what I have to say. Many 
commanders have already said that ours is an Army that is at its 
breaking point. It is a dangerous idea.
  Why, then, is the President advocating it? This decision has the 
cynical smell of politics to me, suggesting that an additional 20,000 
troops will alter the balance of this war. It was a mistake to go into 
Iraq. Now we want to pour 20,000 more of your men and women, your sons 
and daughters, into this maelstrom, this sausage grinder, this drainer 
of blood and life.
  We won't alter the balance of this war. It is a way for the President 
to look forceful, a way for the President to appear to be taking bold 
action. But it is only the appearance of bold action, not the reality, 
much like the image of a cocky President in a flight suit declaring 
``mission accomplished'' from the deck of a battleship. Remember that?
  This is not a new course. It is a continuation of the tragically 
costly course we have been on for almost 5 years now. Too long. I said 
in the beginning, I won't go; it is wrong; we should not attack that 
country which has never invaded us or attacked us. Those persons who 
attacked this country were not Iraqis, right? Somebody says I am right.
  It is simply a policy that buys the President more time, more time to 
equivocate, more time to continue to resist any suggestion that the 
President was wrong to enter our country into this war in the first 
place. This war, in this place, at this time, in this manner, and, 
importantly, calling for more troops, gives the President more time to 
hand the Iraq situation off to his successor in the White House. The 
President apparently believes he can wait this out, that he can 
continue to make small adjustments here and there to a misguided policy 
while he maintains the same trajectory until he leaves office and it 
becomes someone else's problem.
  If you are driving in the wrong direction, anyone knows, as you will 
not get to your destination by going south when you should be going 
north, what do you do? What should you do? You turn around. I see the 
Presiding Officer is following me. I saw him use his arm like that. He 
did just what I did, before I did it. You turn around and get better 
directions.
  This President--I speak respectfully when I speak of the President. I 
speak respectfully of the President; that is my intention--this 
President is asking us to step on the gas in Iraq full throttle while 
he has not clearly articulated where we are going. What is our goal? 
What is our end game? How much progress will we need to see from the 
Iraqi Government before our men and women come home? I should think 
that is what the fathers and mothers of our American troops would want 
to know. What is our goal? What is our end game? In the first place, 
why are we there in Iraq? Why are we asking for more troops now? How 
much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi Government before our 
men and women come home? How long will American troops be stationed in 
Iraq, to be maimed and killed in sectarian bloodshed?
  The ultimate solution to the situation in Iraq is political and would 
have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The Iraqi Government will have 
to address the causes of the insurgency by creating a sustainable 
power-sharing agreement between and among Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, and 
it is far from clear that the Government has the power or the 
willingness at this point. But as long as American troops are there to 
bear the brunt of the blame and the fire, the Iraqi Government will not 
shoulder the responsibility itself. And Iraq's neighbors, especially 
Iran and Syria, won't commit to helping to stabilize the country as 
long as they see American troops bogged down and America losing 
credibility and strength. Keeping the United States Army tied up in a 
bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran's hands and it 
has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency as long 
as America is there. America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting 
solution, not contributing to one.
  Let me say that again. I should repeat that statement. Iraq's 
neighbors, especially Iran and Syria, won't commit to helping to 
stabilize the country as long as they see America bogged down and 
losing credibility and strength. Keeping the United States Army tied up 
in a bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran's hand 
and it has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency 
as long as America is there. America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a 
lasting solution, not contributing to a lasting solution.
  The President has, once again, I say respectfully, gotten it 
backwards. What I hoped to hear from the President were specific 
benchmarks of progress that he expects from the Iraqi Government and a 
plan for the withdrawal of American troops conditioned on those 
benchmarks. Instead, we were given a vague admonition that the 
responsibility for security will rest with the Iraqi Government by 
November, with no suggestion of what that responsibility will mean or 
how to measure that Government's capacity to handle it.
  The President is asking us--you, me, you, you out there, you who look 
around this Chamber today--asking us once again to trust him while he 
keeps our troops mired in Iraq. But that trust was long ago squandered. 
I weep for the waste we have already seen--lives, American lives, Iraqi 
lives, treasure, time, good will, credibility, opportunity--wasted, 
wasted. Now the President is calling for us to waste more. I say 
enough, enough. If he will not provide leadership and statesmanship, if 
he does not have the strength of vision to recognize a failed policy 
and to chart a new course, then leadership will have to come from 
somewhere else. Enough waste, enough lives lost on this misguided 
venture into Iraq.
  I said it was wrongheaded in the beginning and I was right. Enough 
time and energy spent on a civil war far from our shores while the 
problems Americans face are ignored. Yes, while the problems that you, 
the people out there, face--you, the people on the plains and mountains 
and in the hollows and hills, your problems--we wallow in debt and 
mortgage our children's future to foreigners. That is what we are 
doing. We are continuing. We are asking now for more, more, more. Not: 
Give me more, more, more of your kisses but more, more of your money, 
more, more of your lives. Enough. It is time to truly change course. 
Mr. President, it is time to look at the compass, time to change course 
and start talking about how we can rebalance our foreign policy and 
bring our sons and daughters home--bring our sons and daughters home.

  There are a lot of people making political calculations about the war 
in Iraq, turning this debate into an exercise of political 
grandstanding and point scoring. But this is not a political game. This 
is a game of life and death. This is asking thousands more Americans to 
make the ultimate sacrifice for a war that we now know, beyond a shadow 
of a doubt, was a mistake. We had no business going into Iraq. We had 
no business invading a country that never posed an imminent threat, a 
serious threat to our own country.
  There were those of us who cautioned against the hasty rush to war in 
Iraq. And I have some credibility on that score. I cautioned against 
it, yes. And there were others in this Senate Chamber who stood against 
the hasty rush to war in Iraq. Unfortunately, our cries, like 
Cassandra's, went unheeded. Like Cassandra, our warnings and our fears 
proved to be prophetic--proved to be prophetic.
  But we are not doomed to repeat our mistakes. We ought to learn from 
the past. We must understand--and understand it now, and understand it 
clearly--that more money and more troops--more American troops, more 
American lives lost in Iraq--are not the answer.
  The clock--there is the clock above the Presiding Officer's chair. 
There it is. There is the clock. There is another one behind me on this 
wall. These clocks are running, running, running

[[Page S423]]

on our misadventure. And I can say that with credibility because I said 
it was a misadventure in the beginning--our misadventure into Iraq.
  Enough time has been wasted, Mr. President. Enough. Enough. Hear me: 
Enough. Enough time has been wasted.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). My understanding is, under the 
previous order, the Senator from Arizona is recognized for up to 15 
minutes.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suppose it was inevitable, the criticism of 
the President's announcement last night. But I ask: What happened to 
all of the promises of last week, the talk of bipartisanship, the talk 
of trying to work together, especially on the biggest challenge of our 
time, this challenge to our national security? Where is the unity that 
we need at this time for this issue more than at any other? I am 
disappointed by the attacks on President Bush's strategy, particularly 
because they come primarily from people who have offered no 
alternative. It seems to me that threatening to cut off funding for our 
troops, as some have done, while not giving the President's Iraq 
strategy a chance, is the worst kind of partisan politics.
  When dealing with issues of war and peace, and trying to devise a 
strategy that will result in the least harm to Americans, with the 
greatest chance of success, it seems to me we should be trying to find 
common ground.
  The critics of the President throughout last year called for a new 
strategy and interpreted the election results of 2006 as substantially 
a repudiation of the President's strategy and confirmation that there 
needed to be a new strategy.
  After consulting with Members of Congress, with generals, with 
retired generals, with other experts, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, 
and many others, the President has come up with another strategy, and 
he announced that strategy last night. It seems to me that we at least 
owe him the opportunity to see whether that strategy can work before 
immediately attacking it as a policy that is bound to fail, especially, 
as I said, because I have seen no alternative.
  The only alternative is that we withdraw. There are a lot of 
different ways that we would withdraw, and timetables for withdrawal, 
but they all come down to withdrawing. That suggests that leaving the 
Iraqi forces to establish the stability and peace that is required in 
Iraq is likely to be more successful than the Iraqi troops combined 
with U.S. troops--a proposition which, it seems to me, is incredible on 
its face. So where is the alternative strategy for success?
  Now, one of our colleagues, earlier this morning, said:

       We are in a hole in Iraq, and the President says the way to 
     dig out of this hole is to dig deeper. Does that make sense, 
     when you are in a hole, you get out by digging deeper? This 
     is a reckless plan. It is about saving the Bush Presidency. 
     It is not about saving Iraq.

  Well, let me talk about the two elements of that--first, the analogy, 
which I think breaks down. I have used it before. It is a good analogy 
in certain situations. But it is a little bit like saying that when the 
first wave of our boys hit the Normandy beaches, because many of them 
were dying, that it made no sense to add more forces, to land the rest 
of our troops on the beach. And that, of course, was not the case.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Those of us who disagreed with the plan to go into Iraq in 
the beginning--and now who disagree with the request that we put more 
troops into Iraq--we are not talking about the Normandy beach. That was 
an entirely different matter.

  What are we fighting for over here in Iraq? Why are the American 
people sending their boys and girls into Iraq, a country that has not 
attacked us? Why are we sending our boys and girls to have their blood 
spilled in that faraway country? For what? For what are we spending 
these billions of dollars?
  I cannot understand it. I say that most respectfully to the 
distinguished Senator, who is my friend.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, the Senator asked that question in his remarks a few 
minutes ago, and I had written down that is a fair question. I am 
prepared to answer that question, and I would like to answer that 
question. If the Senator would allow me just to finish the point I was 
making earlier, I will answer that question.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Very well. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KYL. I might say, by the way, that is the central question, and 
it has not been adequately answered to date. I will concede that to my 
friend from West Virginia. But there is an answer, I believe, that 
justifies, that warrants our participation, and I will make that point.
  The point I wanted to make before is that simply because you are 
having a problem achieving something does not mean it is wrong to try 
to figure out a new strategy to win. And sometimes applying more force 
can supply that element, that missing element.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. Yes, of course, I will be happy to.
  Mr. BYRD. What is it we are seeking to achieve by putting more troops 
into Iraq?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that 
the time used by the Senator from West Virginia not count against the 
time I was given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Secondly, since the Senator has remained on the Senate floor 
and asked that question a second time, I will go ahead and move to 
answer that question, and then come back to the other points I was 
going to make a moment ago.
  Basically, the Senator asked two questions: Why are we there in the 
first place; and, secondly, how is this strategy supposed to enable us 
to achieve the victory we seek to achieve?
  Let me answer that second question first, briefly, because the 
President talked about this last night. The concept that the President 
outlined was one that he had developed, or our forces in Iraq had 
developed with the Maliki government. And it was predicated on a 
commitment that the President received from the Iraqi Government that 
it would be willing to do some things differently in the future.
  Specifically, what? We appreciate until peace and stability come to 
Iraq, it is not going to be possible for that Iraqi Government to 
engage in the political and economic reforms that will be necessary for 
that society to move forward.
  How does one achieve peace and stability? For most of the country 
there is relative peace. But everyone agrees in Baghdad itself there is 
great conflict and killing. So the President talked last night about a 
division of the city into nine specific regions, bringing in more 
troops from the Iraqi Government, twice as many more as the United 
States would bring in, in order not just to clear those areas of the 
killers, as the President called them, but to hold the areas, to 
prevent them from coming back in and then causing harm to the innocent 
Iraqi civilians.
  The Maliki government had talked about doing this in the past. But 
when we did the clearing, the killers were allowed to come back and 
continue their bad action right after we left. We established 
checkpoints and curfews, and the Iraqi Government said they would like 
for us to eliminate those checkpoints and curfews. We would arrest 
these killers and put them in jail, but the Iraqi Government would let 
them back out. In other words, it was doing things that were 
antithetical to our ability to consolidate the original victory we 
obtained by clearing those areas of the killers.
  The President obtained a commitment from Maliki that this would 
change, so the strategy now would be with Iraqi troops taking the lead 
and American troops assisting, to clear the areas and hold them, and 
hold the killers responsible, keep them from killing again, and go 
after the militias, especially in Baghdad, that were doing most of this 
killing.
  Now, that would require some additional troops in Baghdad, and the 
President talked about the number of troops that would be provided for 
that. He said the other area where troops

[[Page S424]]

would be provided would be in Al Anbar Province, to the west, where the 
al-Qaida terrorists had basically developed a tremendous amount of 
strength and taken over parts of that area, and some additional troops 
would be needed there.
  There were other elements of the President's speech. There were well 
over 20, as I counted them, of different parts of this strategy. But 
the key elements were the ones I just mentioned. So that is the role 
these additional troops are supposed to play.
  Now, to the more fundamental question that the Senator asked, if one 
only looks at Iraq in a vacuum, I can easily understand why one would 
come to the conclusion that with the death and destruction there, and 
the harm to our own troops, it does not make sense for us to be there.
  But Iraq is not in a vacuum. Iraq is part of a larger war. And this 
is one thing that both Osama bin Laden and George Bush agree on, 
probably the only thing: Both of them have called the battle in Iraq 
critical to achieving victory in the ultimate--the President calls it 
the war against terrorists; bin Laden calls it the holy jihad. But, in 
either case, they understand that the loser in this battle in Iraq is 
not likely to be able to prevail in the larger global war.
  In bin Laden's case, he is talking about the war to establish the 
califate, and he says that Baghdad will be the capital of the califate. 
This is the area that will be ruled by Sharia, the strict law of his 
interpretation of Islam. The U.S. concept of victory is a peaceful, 
stable Iraq that can maintain its society and borders and be an ally 
with us in the war against the terrorists.
  Our security there is identified in two ways. First, because of the 
al-Qaida and other terrorists who, as I said, have done a tremendous 
amount of damage in Al Anbar Province and who initiated a lot of the 
conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis, among other things, by 
bombing one of the most holy of the Shiite mosques; they have initiated 
a lot of this terrorism. We have to be able to defeat al-Qaida and the 
other terrorists in Iraq.
  Secondly, we cannot lose the momentum we have gained in this war 
against these terrorists in places such as Jordan and Egypt and Saudi 
Arabia and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen and other places. From a 
situation where they were actually helping terrorists, we have gotten 
to a point where they are actually helping us to find and root out and 
capture or kill the terrorists. Were we to leave Iraq a failed state, 
it would not only be a devastating--I will use the word--Holocaust for 
the people of Iraq, especially anyone who tried to help us or 
participated with the Iraqi Government, but it would be a horrible blow 
to our national security because it would reverse the momentum we have 
gained in the war against the terrorists and cause these other states 
to begin to hedge their bets in working with us because it is a 
dangerous neighborhood. It would be evident that we have no stomach to 
stay there and that the terrorists, therefore, can move back in, can 
use those as a base of operation and continue, then, to work against 
the states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the like. In 
fact, Saudi Arabia has already talked about trying to provide funding 
for Sunnis in Iraq. Iran is providing assistance to Shiites in Iraq. 
These are the reasons why it is more than a battle for Iraq but, 
rather, to continue the momentum we have gained in dealing with these 
radicals all throughout that region.
  Mr. BYRD. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield, again, to my friend.
  Mr. BYRD. He used these words: ``We have no stomach to stay there.'' 
The question is, How long and at what cost? Stay there how long? How 
long are the American taxpayers and mothers and fathers going to put up 
with the use of their sons and daughters and their money? How long are 
they going to continue to want to--I shouldn't say it that way--how 
long are they going to continue to put up with this expenditure of 
blood and money and for what? I thank my friend for yielding. I hope I 
don't appear to be discourteous in any way.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has, again, 
asked the most fundamental of all questions. I am going to have to take 
some time to go into more detail about my answer to the question. But I 
think I have tried to answer one of the two questions: What is the U.S. 
security interest in achieving victory in Iraq?
  We know that the world in that region would be thrown into absolute 
chaos, with probably hundreds of thousands of casualties, if not more, 
if we leave Iraq a failed state. Even more directly to America's 
interests and to answer the question of how long will Americans support 
this effort is the danger that our momentum in the war on terror will 
be set back and will be dealt a tremendous blow if we leave Iraq a 
failed state and the terrorists are able to then move out from there 
and again become dominant in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
the Wahabis, and Saudi Arabia and so on. That would be a terrible blow 
to the progress we have made against these terrorists.
  Osama bin Laden has a saying about the weak horse and the strong 
horse. It has always been his view that we are a weak horse because we 
get out when the going gets tough--in Lebanon, in Vietnam, and in 
Mogadishu. He believes that just as he thinks he threw the Soviets out 
of Afghanistan, he can throw the United States out of all of this part 
of the world because we are the weak horse. If we confirm to the people 
in that region that he is right, because we will not stay in Iraq 
because of the difficulties we have confronted, then we will only 
validate the view that he has propounded and make it much more 
difficult for us to confront terrorists.
  To the question of how long Americans will continue to support this, 
I suspect that the answer is only so long as they believe there is a 
prospect for success and only so long as the hidden costs of failure 
remain hidden. We have not done as good a job as we need to, to say: 
All right, maybe this new strategy of President Bush won't work. He 
believes it will. There are new commitments from the Iraqi Government 
that suggest it will. We are going to be doing things differently. We 
believe this has a chance to succeed. We know one thing for sure; that 
is, the alternative, withdrawal, is a guarantee for failure. And what 
will that failure bring? Who wants the blood on his or her hands of the 
hundreds of thousands of people who are likely to be killed as a result 
of our leaving Iraq a failed state? Who wants to then ask the question 
of why it is that terrorists began to spread their evil ideology 
throughout that part of the world to be more effective in potentially 
attacking the United States, when, in fact, we have had them on the 
run? The evidence of what we did in Somalia is a good illustration. The 
fact that the London bombing about 6 months ago was thwarted is another 
good illustration of the fact that when we have good intelligence and 
when we have the ability to take the fight to the enemy, we make 
ourselves more secure.
  I appreciate the questions of the Senator from West Virginia. They go 
to the heart of this debate. I would hope that we will have the 
opportunity soon to expand on these questions and the answers to them 
and engage in the kind of debate that we haven't had up to now and this 
country needs in order to be able to make the decision of what kind of 
support it wants to give to the President or whether it wants to accept 
other points of view.
  I didn't deliver quite the remarks I intended, but I appreciate the 
comments of the Senator from West Virginia. I would be happy to engage 
in that discussion in the future.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to ask the Senator from Arizona a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. The question I have is, The distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia asked the question: How long and at what price? But that 
is a false choice. Because if we leave Iraq and we walk away, we are 
going to be fighting this battle again. So it is not about how long and 
at what price; it is, when are we going to have this battle again? I 
believe that is up for debate. What the American people lack is the 
understanding that if we walk out now, we are going to put young men 
and women

[[Page S425]]

again at risk, at far greater numbers and at far greater cost in the 
future, as we empower the terrorists. I wonder if the Senator from 
Arizona may comment.

  Mr. KYL. In response to the Senator from Oklahoma, that is the point 
I raised at the very end. It is not only a question of whether the 
President's new strategy has a chance to succeed, as he believes it 
does, but what is the alternative. If the alternative is leaving Iraq a 
failed state, I have barely scratched the surface of identifying the 
horrors that that would represent and the dangers to American national 
security that it would involve. We need to do a better job of 
articulating that alternative. As I see it, that is the only 
alternative that has been put forward to the President's new strategy.


                       Amendments Nos. 11 and 13

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, am I correct in my understanding that I 
control the time between now and 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that is correct.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.
  I am here to discuss two amendments that will be voted on at 2 
o'clock. I see my colleague, Senator Coburn, is here to speak on one of 
them. I will make a few comments and then yield some time to him.
  This whole debate about lobbying and ethics reform is very important 
to this Congress. We know from the last election that the American 
people are concerned about how we spend our money, about corruption. 
The closer we looked at it as Congressmen and Senators, the clearer it 
became that the practice we have of earmarking, which is providing some 
favor with tax dollars to some group or entity around the country, has 
begun to corrupt the process. The scandals we saw on the House side 
were mostly related specifically to a lobbyist basically buying an 
earmark, a favor we consider scandalous in the Senate.
  The new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in a thoughtful proposal, 
H.R. 6, provided a clear definition of what these earmarks or favors 
are, so that when we begin to develop reform of the earmarking process, 
we can target those things that are the problem.
  That is what my amendment is about. The bill that is on the floor of 
the Senate now defines earmarks in a way that only includes about 5 
percent of the total earmarks. It would not have included the type of 
earmarks that got Congressman Duke Cunningham in trouble. It would not 
have included the Abramoff type of scandal either. We often disagree, 
but as we start this new session, there is a new climate of 
bipartisanship, the need to cooperate, Republicans and Democrats. But 
it is also important, between the House and the Senate, that when we 
think the House gets it right, whether it is Republican or Democrat, we 
should take an honest look at it. In this case, Speaker Pelosi has it 
right on the earmarks.
  I would like to speak more about it. Before I do, I will yield 
whatever time Senator Coburn would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I don't think you can have a discussion on 
earmarks until you set the predicate for what is really going on. It is 
not dishonorable to want to help your home State. The vast majority of 
those things that are considered earmarks are not bad projects. They 
are not dark. They have a common good that most people would say would 
be adequate.
  The question about earmarks is, What has evolved through the years 
and what have they become? I believe earmarks have been the gateway 
drug to the lack of control of the Federal budget. The proof of that 
is, look at who votes against appropriations bills. I will promise you, 
there won't be Senators in this body who have an earmark in a bill that 
will vote against the appropriations bill. What does that say? Does 
that mean everything in that bill was good; they agree with the bill?
  What it means is, they have an earmark in the bill. And if they vote 
against it, the next time they want an earmark, they won't get it. So 
you have the coercion of using earmarks to control votes.
  Our oath is to do what is in the best long-term interest of our 
country. No matter what our political philosophy, we are all Americans.
  We can all agree about that. And whether we are liberal or 
conservative, we don't want any money wasted. But as we spend money on 
things that are earmarks that are not bad but definitely should not be 
a priority when we are fighting a war and have a gulf catastrophe and a 
budget deficit of $300 billion we are passing on to our children, we 
get the priorities all out of whack. Priorities are what the American 
people said they wanted us back on, and they wanted us back on it 
together.
  The bill that is on the floor, as the Senator from South Carolina 
said, addresses only 5 percent of that problem--5 percent of the 
earmarks. The Congressional Research Service looked at that--12,318, of 
which 534 would fall under the bill that is on the floor--correction, 
12,852 is the total and there are 12,318 that this bill would not apply 
to at all. It would have no application to it at all.
  The other problem with earmarks is there has to be sunshine. Fixing 
the problem to make everybody think we fixed it versus really fixing it 
is what this bill does. It is a charade, as far as earmarks are 
concerned. There is nothing wrong with wanting an earmark or for me 
wanting to bring something to Oklahoma. I have chosen not to do that 
because I cannot see how Oklahoma can be helped with an earmark when we 
are borrowing $300 billion from our kids and grandkids. I cannot see 
how that priority can be greater when it undermines the future standard 
of living of our children and grandchildren. But to put this bill up 
without the House version--and even it doesn't go far enough because it 
doesn't list who the sponsor is until after it is passed. In other 
words, you don't know who the sponsor is until after the bills come 
through.
  We need to be honest with the American people. The only way we are 
ever going to get our house in order fiscally is to have complete 
transparency on what we are doing, so they can see it. Today the 
President of the Senate and I passed a bill that will, after the fact, 
create transparency so that everybody will know where all the money 
went. But it does nothing before the fact. We need the discipline to 
control the spending and to not use this tool of earmarks as a coercive 
tool with which we get votes on appropriations bills that are spending 
more money than we have.
  This last year, a subcommittee I chaired in the last Congress had 46 
oversight hearings where we identified over $200 billion in 
discretionary waste, fraud, or duplication. We ought to be taking up 
those things. We ought to be eliminating that. We can do tremendous 
work.
  The other thing that is important in the earmark discussion is that 
you don't have an earmark if it is authorized. When it is authorized, 
that means a committee of the Senate--a group of our peers--looked at 
it and said this is a priority and something that should be done; 
therefore, it is no longer an appropriations earmark because it has 
been approved by the committee of jurisdiction.
  The best way to eliminate earmarks is to bring them into the 
sunlight, get them authorized, and allow Appropriations to fund them. 
That way, we have 100-percent sunshine and the American people know 
what we are doing, and we defend that in the public, open arena of 
committee hearings. We should not be afraid to do what is right, what 
is open, what is honest, and what is transparent for the American 
public. They deserve no less than that.
  The earmark provision that is in the bill in the Senate that we are 
debating right now is cleaning the outside of the cup while the inside 
stays dirty. We should not let that happen. There is no doubt in my 
mind that Senator DeMint's amendment is going to lose.
  So the question has to come to the American public, are you going to 
hold the Senate accountable for acting as though they are fixing 
something when they are not? Anybody who votes for this bill, with the 
language in it the way it is today, is winking and nodding to the 
American people and saying we fixed it. But we didn't. Everybody here 
knows it won't be fixed with the language as it sits today. So it is 
going to

[[Page S426]]

require the American people to have great oversight over us to see who 
votes for this bill. If you are voting for this bill, you don't want to 
change the way business is done here; you want to leave it exactly the 
way it is and leave everything alone. So you want to tell everybody you 
fixed it when you didn't. That smacks of a lack of integrity in this 
body that belies its history.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his persistence 
and hard work on a very commonsense issue. Many times in this Chamber, 
and in the House, we assume on our side that if the Democrats have an 
amendment, there is always some trick in it and they are trying to get 
us to take a vote and make us look bad; we don't trust each other. I 
wish to make an appeal that on this one amendment--this amendment No. 
11 we have talked about--there is no trick. It is the exact language 
Speaker  Nancy Pelosi put in their ethics bill, because everybody 
there--many Republicans and Democrats--agree that if we are going to at 
least have a pretense of changing the culture here, we need to be fully 
transparent and open and honest in what we are talking about.
  As Senator Coburn said, many earmarks are good projects; they help 
people and organizations. The problem we have is that in order to get a 
few of those things that are good and necessary, we have to vote for 
thousands and thousands of earmarks that are not Federal priorities, 
and many of them, once disclosed, become an embarrassment to us. I 
think it has made the American people jaded about what we do here.
  This is an opportunity to at least work together on one thing. The 
problem we had--and Senator Coburn mentioned this--in 2006 is that in 
the appropriations bills there were 12,852 earmarks. I am sure there 
are many that could be defended. But the biggest problem we have as a 
Congress is that behind these thousands of earmarks are thousands and 
thousands of lobbyists who have been paid to come up here and influence 
us in a way that would include a favor for their client in the bill. 
Again, many of these are legitimate. But what we have done to ourselves 
and our country--it drives me crazy to see a little town in South 
Carolina that is paying a lobbyist firm over $100,000 a year because 
that firm has promised them they can come up here and get a Federal 
earmark for a million dollars or more. What a great return--pay 
$100,000 and get a million dollar earmark. We see little colleges, 
associations, and businesses hiring lobbyists, hoping to get a 
particular earmark. So we have thousands of lobbyists in this town who 
are here to try to influence us to do a favor on behalf of their 
client. Much of this is legitimate, but our oath and our reason for 
being here is for the good of this country. We cannot do business with 
thousands and thousands of special interests who are here to influence 
us, and we have a system that actually makes it difficult for us not to 
go along with that, as Senator Coburn has pointed out.

  This amendment is very simple. It doesn't create any kind of rigorous 
process for disclosure, which has been claimed here today by the other 
side. It simply says if we are going to create a transparent, well-
disclosed process of the earmarks we are putting into a bill, all of 
them are disclosed, not just some small definition that includes only 5 
out of 100 earmarks. We have already said there were only 534 out of 
about 12,800, so we cannot pretend to be putting a stop to the 
corrupting process of money here in the Congress if we try to convince 
the American people that somehow we have done some good. If we look at 
the corruption we are trying to get rid of, Duke Cunningham on the 
House side was influenced by lobbyists to get a Federal earmark from 
the Department of Defense. That would not have been included in the 
bill that is here on the Senate side. But it would be in Nancy Pelosi's 
language. We could stop the corruption before it ever happens.
  We have a real opportunity to do something that is significant. If we 
are going to spend weeks and weeks--which ultimately we are--with 
ethics and lobbying reform and transparency, if we get to the end of 
this and we have something that does not appear remotely honest to the 
American people, I think we will all be ashamed of the process we went 
through. Unfortunately, yesterday, we voted down an amendment that 
would bring another bit of honesty to this organization. We had the big 
scandal we talked about in the last election, Abramoff. The problem 
there is that Indian tribes in America are allowed to give unregulated 
amounts of unaccountable money to Congress to buy influence, and that 
is what happened in that case.
  We had an amendment yesterday that would have asked the Indian tribes 
to play by the same rules every other group in America plays by, but we 
voted it down. That means that in the future Indian tribes, with all 
their casinos and money, are going to continue to flood Congress with 
money and the American people don't know what it is buying, where it is 
coming from. It is senseless to go through an ethics reform bill and 
overlook something that obvious.
  Today, we have something equally as obvious. We have a proposal to 
identify and make transparent the earmarks that come through the 
appropriation bills. It is something the House has agreed on, and 
Speaker Pelosi has made it a top priority. This is not a partisan 
trick. This is a commonsense disclosure provision that will be good for 
this body.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will make a point. There is nobody down 
here defending the other side.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am here.
  Mr. COBURN. I would love to have a debate on the basis of why the 
amendment that is in this substitute should not cover the other 95 
percent of the earmarks. I ask the Senator from Illinois, what is the 
basis for only covering 5 percent of the earmarks in the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is controlled by the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield to Senator Durbin so he may answer the question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are two problems, at least, with the 
amendment. First, we try in the bipartisan Reid-McConnell earmark 
reform to include not only appropriations earmarks but also tax 
benefits. It is the same deal. You either send a million dollars to a 
corporation in an appropriations earmark or in a tax benefit. So we 
include both. The language of Senator DeMint's amendment, 
unfortunately, waters that down and weakens it.
  Secondly, we have more stringent reporting requirements in the Reid-
McConnell amendment than in the DeMint amendment. There is no reason to 
walk backward here. We are moving forward toward reform of earmarks. I 
don't know if it was a drafting error or what, but the DeMint amendment 
makes language on tax earmarks weaker and the reporting requirements 
weaker as well.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy 
to work with the Senator on that. We include earmarks related to 
special tax treatment and special tariffs. I know there was discussion 
in the House. Again, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats decided on this 
definition because they believe strongly in it. I do, too. We are 
certainly willing to work on that.
  The strategy today to table this amendment that would move from 5 
percent of earmarks to 100 percent does not seem to be an open and 
honest part of the process to get at a better ethics reform bill.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. I make the point, if you got better reporting on 5 
percent and no reporting on 95 percent, you have nothing. That is the 
whole point. Before the Senator from Illinois came down, I said it is 
not dishonorable to ask for an earmark. Most of them are good projects. 
I made that point. But to not have 95 percent of the earmarks reported, 
whether strong or weak, and say we are going to report 5 percent of the 
earmarks and report them strongly is not cleaning anything up.

  Mr. DURBIN. Will one of the Senators yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield.

[[Page S427]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As I said, this is 
getting perilously close to debate in the Senate, which hardly ever 
happens.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for being here.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am glad to be here with my colleague. The difference is 
this: I have had a passion for a long time about the fight for global 
AIDS. I believe we need to appropriate the funds that the President 
promised and for which I applauded him to fight the global AIDS 
epidemic.
  Every year I try to plus up and increase the amount of money that 
goes to fight global AIDS. I have been successful. I am proud of it. I 
think it is something I have done that has made a difference in the 
world.
  That, under the Senator's definition, is an earmark. It is not an 
earmark as we have traditionally understood it. The money is not going 
to a private company, individual or private entity. The money is going 
to a Federal agency.
  To add to this earmark reform language, all the money that goes to 
Federal agencies may give the Senator some satisfaction, but it is just 
creating voluminous, unnecessary paperwork.
  Can we not focus on where the abuses have occurred, where the 
earmarks have gone to special interest groups, businesses, and 
individuals? Let's get that right. The rest of it is what an 
appropriations bill is all about.
  Mr. DeMINT. In the interest of continued debate, I yield to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina yields to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first, that is not an earmark program. It 
is not an earmark. Everybody knows it is not an earmark. It is the 95 
percent that is in the report language that nobody knows about and on 
which we are not going to report.
  The American people deserve transparency. The Senator is good. 
Senator Durbin is very good, and I understand debating with him is 
difficult, but he is not to the point. The point is, that is not an 
earmark. It is a great move to the side. That is not an earmark. Items 
authorized are not earmarks. That is the point I made before the 
Senator from Illinois came to the floor.
  All we have to do to get rid of the earmark program is to authorize 
them in an authorizing committee. Let a group of our peers say they are 
good. But we don't want to do that. We want to continue to hide this 95 
percent that is hidden in the report language that the American public 
isn't going to know about until an outside group or some Senator raises 
it to say: Look at this atrocious thing.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I would like to finish. The point being, let's not send a 
false message to the American public. This provision that is in this 
bill is a sham in terms of cleaning up earmarks, and if you are going 
to defend it, then you are going to have to defend it to the American 
public.
  It will not eliminate 95 percent of the earmarks, it will not make 
them transparent, and they will never know until after the fact who did 
it, why, when, and what lobbyist got paid for it.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, reclaiming my time. I am running short. I 
believe I have until 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Illinois has 
asked if the Senator from South Carolina will yield for a response.
  Mr. DeMINT. I will yield in a moment. I appreciate the Senator from 
Illinois staying with us because I want to mention another amendment 
and give him some comment. I do appreciate the opportunity for some 
debate.
  I would like to summarize to make a key point. Nothing in this 
amendment would limit, in any way, our ability to earmark bills. We 
could have 12,000 next year, if we want. The main point of this is that 
if we are going to have 12,800 some-odd earmarks we have a way to show 
the American people what these earmarks are, where they are going, and 
who sponsored them so they can see what we are doing.
  We know what that would do. It would, first of all, reduce a lot of 
the earmarks if they were disclosed. It would allow Members to know 
when we have earmarks. Many times, the 95 percent or so we are voting 
on are in a conference report, and we haven't seen them. We are not 
eliminating earmarks, we are disclosing them and making them 
transparent, which is key to any lobby reform.
  Let me mention another amendment we talked about earlier today. It is 
referred to as an automatic continuing resolution, and I am sure a lot 
of folks don't know exactly what we are talking about. Every year we go 
through a process of appropriating money for different Government 
programs. We have 11 or so different bills, if that is the way we 
divide it this year. We have to have those done, or supposed to, by the 
end of our fiscal year in order for the Government to continue 
operations. But 24 out of the last 25 years, the Congress, under the 
control of both Republicans and Democrats, has not finished all its 
appropriations bills before the end of our fiscal year, and we have had 
to have a continuing resolution to avoid the Government shutting down. 
We have done that every year I have been in the House and in the 
Senate.

  What that does at the end of every year is create a crisis. We have 
to vote for the continuing resolution, we have to get it done, and that 
is when many of these earmarks are slipped in. That is when many times 
we are told that if we want to keep the Government operating, we need 
to vote for this resolution, even though we don't know what is in it 
yet.
  Every year we frighten senior citizens, veterans, and other people 
depending on Government programs that somehow their service is going to 
be interrupted because the Government is going to close down.
  It is completely unnecessary to do this every year. We know, in the 
last years, it is not unusual for us to pass a continuing resolution in 
the middle of the night and put it on a jet airplane and fly it to the 
other part of the world so the President can sign it at the last minute 
so we won't send all our Federal employees home and cut services around 
the country. It is a game we play every year that encourages bad 
legislation, it encourages unnecessary earmarks, and it encourages us 
to operate with blinders on because we don't know what we are voting 
on. This is not a partisan trick because the Democrats could be in 
charge, we could have a Democratic President.
  This amendment is, again, very simple. If we have not passed the 
appropriations bills at the end of the fiscal year that applies to 
certain agencies of Government, those agencies continue to operate at 
the budget they had the previous year. At whatever time during the year 
we pass the appropriations bill that funds them, then that circumvents 
the automatic CR, and we continue with the new level funding. This 
would take the crisis out of the end of every year.
  What is effective blackmail, where you vote for this or the 
Government is going to close down, we don't need to do that. What we 
need is an orderly, transparent process that the American people can 
see and that we as Members can see.
  This amendment would continue the operation of Government until we 
are able to get our business done, and then we would continue business 
as usual.
  Again, it is simple, commonsense legislation that does not cost the 
country anything. In fact, I think it will save us millions and 
millions of dollars when we do our business correctly.
  If the Senator from Illinois has some response, I will be glad to 
yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will be kind enough to 
yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been speaking with our colleague 
from Oklahoma. On some of this, I say to the Senator, we may be able to 
reach an understanding. As I understand it, from the original language 
of the bill which referred to earmarks as non-Federal spending, that 
language ``non-Federal'' is stricken, leading us to conclude that it 
applies to Federal earmarks as well.
  The Senator from Oklahoma says he believes the distinction should be 
whether the program is authorized. That is not in the language of the 
amendment of the Senator from South Carolina.
  It is important for us, if we are going to change the Senate rules, 
to explore

[[Page S428]]

in some detail the language we use. Although the Senator's intent may 
be noble, I am opposing it as currently written because I think we need 
to tighten it and make sure we achieve what we want to achieve.
  The final point I will make is, as disappointing as the underlying 
bill may be to some, to others, I think it is a positive step forward. 
It is going to result in more required transparency and disclosure than 
currently exists.
  If the Senator feels we should move beyond it, perhaps at another 
time we can, but let's do it in a manner that achieves exactly what the 
Senator has described on the floor. I think the language presented to 
us does not achieve that.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's transparency. I 
have been around long enough to know exactly what is going to happen. 
If we have a transparent provision for 5 percent of earmarks, but if we 
do them another way, such as in report language, they are not 
transparent, and this is going to encourage more perversion of the way 
we do business because what is going to happen is we are going to push 
more and more of our earmarks into report language in conference bills 
that we don't know is there and the American people don't know is 
there.

  We know how this place operates, and we are going to choose the path 
of least resistance. If we don't have to disclose it if it is in report 
language, but we do if it is in the bill, then we are actually going to 
do harm to the process.
  I will tell the Senator from Illinois this: He mentioned a Senate 
rule. We are not talking about a Senate rule. We are talking about a 
statute of law we are passing that will go to conference with the 
House. The Senator, obviously, as a member of the majority, will have 
ample opportunity to change this provision, but I think it would be a 
good signal to America, to the House, to our colleagues in the Senate 
that if we adopt this amendment today, and if there are ways to improve 
it in conference, I am certainly open to that. But to table this 
amendment and to say we don't even want to discuss or vote on an 
amendment that creates more disclosure and honesty in the process, I 
think does harm to what we are trying to do today.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, having served in the 
House and Senate on Appropriations Committees and having been fortunate 
to chair a subcommittee in the House and now in the Senate, I would 
like to make this point which I think the Senator's amendment misses.
  We cannot authorize a program with committee report language--we 
cannot authorize a program with committee report language. I learned 
long ago that unless we have bill language, actually creating a law, we 
are not authorizing the creation of a program. The Senator's language 
says:

       The term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision or 
     report language authorizing or recommending a specific 
     amount.

  It is not legally possible in a committee report to authorize a 
program.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. The Senator from 
Illinois is right. We don't authorize, but the Senator also mentioned 
the word ``recommending.'' Ninety-five percent of the earmarks produced 
by this Congress are in report language and conference reports that 
actually do not have the force of law, that are recommended but have 
been carried out by the executive branch for years just for fear of 
retribution from the Congress because we talked to the President about 
this.
  There is no reason why these should not be disclosed. There is no 
reason the American people should not know they are there. We are not 
limiting the number that can be there. We are not suggesting we change 
the authorizing process.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I want to put in the Record this idea of Federal entity, 
non-Federal entity. Let me give my colleagues examples of Army Corps of 
Engineers' earmarks in report language:
  Six hundred thousand dollars to study fish passage, Mud Mountain, WA;
  Two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars to remove the sunken 
vessel State of Pennsylvania from a river in Delaware;
  Five hundred thousand dollars for the collection of technical and 
environmental data to be used to evaluate potential rehabilitation of 
the St. Mary Storage Unit facilities, Milk River Project, MT;
  Five million dollars for rural Idaho environmental infrastructure. 
Nowhere will you find in that bill what that is for. The American 
people ought to know what that is for. We ought to know what that is 
for.
  One million and seventy-five thousand dollars for a reformulation 
study of Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY;
  One hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the Teddy Roosevelt 
Environmental Education Center;
  One million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the Sacred 
Falls demonstration project in Hawaii;
  Two million dollars for the Desert Research Institute in Nevada.
  None of those are authorized. Nobody will hold anybody accountable 
for those earmarks. Nobody will know it happened unless we bring it up 
on the floor, and then we would not have the power to vote because the 
coercive power of appropriations in this Congress is, if you don't vote 
for it, you won't get the next earmark you want; you will be excluded 
from helping your State on a legitimate earmark.
  The American people better pay attention to the vote on tabling this 
amendment because anybody who votes to table this amendment wants to 
continue the status quo in Washington as far as earmarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to table the DeMint amendment. 
This amendment would strike earmark reform language in the Reid-
McConnell bipartisan substitute and replace it with provisions which 
contain, among other things, a definition of earmarked tax benefits 
which is weaker than the Reid-McConnell language.
  The DeMint amendment would define a tax benefit as an earmark only if 
it benefits 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This leaves open a loophole for 
earmarks aimed at benefitting very small groups of people, perhaps as 
few as 11 or 15 or 50 taxpayers. It would be relatively easy to 
circumvent the DeMint language and the intent of the tax earmark 
language in the bill.
  The bipartisan Reid-McConnell language, on the other hand, defines a 
tax benefit as an earmark if it ``has the practical effect of providing 
more favorable tax treatment to a limited group of taxpayers when 
compared with similarly situated taxpayers.'' This is stronger 
language--a limited group can be far more than 10.
  I am hopeful that this bill will come back from conference committee 
containing strong and effective earmark reform provisions from both the 
House and the Senate bills.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will give the Senator from Illinois the 
last word.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 2 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that committee 
report language cannot authorize something that is not legal, no matter 
what we put in committee report language. This has to be put in bill 
language.
  So referring to a committee report--trust me, after more than 20 
years serving on appropriations committees, committee report language 
is akin to sending a note to your sister--it doesn't mean much. But 
when it comes to the actual expenditure of money, you want bill 
language and it is there.
  Let me, also, say that the money the Senator is talking about is 
being transferred, I assume--I don't know those particular projects--to 
other governmental entities. They could be counties, they could be 
States, they could be cities. These governmental entities are receiving 
this money.
  What we are talking about, the most egregious cases that have led to 
the greatest embarrassment on Capitol Hill involves the people who 
represent private interest groups who come here and receive these 
earmarked funds. Those people are subject to full disclosure under the 
underlying bill. That is what this is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2

[[Page S429]]

minutes of debate equally divided in relation to the DeMint amendment 
No. 11. Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. DeMINT. Which amendment is this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 11.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this is what we call the Nancy Pelosi 
amendment; it is in her honor. I appreciate the opportunity for debate. 
I appreciate my colleague from Illinois joining us in some give and 
take. I think there is a temptation to make this more than it is. It is 
not a new set of regulations. It is applying the same transparency we 
are trying to apply to 5 percent of earmarks to all the earmarks so 
that we will not only be honest as a body, but we will appear honest to 
the American people.
  I think all of us know if we walk out of here and the media shines a 
light on what we have done, and if it becomes obvious that most of the 
earmarks we pass are completely overlooked by our ethics and lobbying 
reform bill, then it will be seen for the sham that it really is. We 
are investing too much of our time and too much of the interests of our 
country in this idea of ethics reform----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the President for his patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for a motion 
to table. We have a good underlying bipartisan bill that will bring 
about significant reform in the earmark process. The DeMint amendment 
would weaken the bill in two specific instances.
  When it comes to targeted tax benefits, his definition, regardless of 
the source, is not as strong as the underlying bill, which means the 
targeted tax benefits that benefit special interest groups will not 
receive the same full disclosure under DeMint that they will under the 
underlying bill.
  Second, for reasons I don't understand, he removes the requirement of 
posting these earmarks on the Internet 48 hours in advance. That is a 
good safeguard. Why he has removed it I don't know, but it weakens the 
underlying bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to table. I will work 
with my colleagues from South Carolina and Oklahoma in the hopes that 
we can find some common ground.
  Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hatch
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Inouye
     Johnson
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 13

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate actually divided 
prior to the vote on the DeMint amendment, No. 13.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask for order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, it is my understanding I am speaking in 
defense of amendment No. 13, which we call the automatic continuing 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DeMINT. I wish to appeal to my fellow Senators to remember that 
over the last 25 years, 24 of those years we were not able to complete 
the appropriations process before the end of the fiscal year. As you 
know, every year we have a crisis situation here. We are all familiar 
with the end of the year crisis where we have to vote for a bill or we 
are going to close down the Government or parts of the Government. We 
sign a continuing resolution and that night, many times, we are flying 
to other parts of the world so the President can sign it.
  This amendment is a very simple idea. If we are not able to finish an 
appropriations bill before the end of the fiscal year, it simply 
continues the Government under last year's funding. That way, we do not 
have to have a crisis and vote on bills we have not read and that we 
are embarrassed about 3 weeks later, and we do not have to threaten 
Federal employees or senior citizens that their services will be cut 
off.
  Please support this amendment. It is simple common sense to continue 
the operations of Government until we can complete our business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment essentially provides for 
an automatic continuing resolution in the event any annual 
appropriations bill is not enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal 
year.
  In this fiscal cycle we have passed three continuing resolutions to 
fund the programs for which appropriations bills have not yet been 
enacted. Those continuing resolutions have been free of extraneous 
matter, and have been passed by the House and Senate without particular 
difficulty.
  My desire to enact the regular appropriations bills on time does not 
stem from fear of our inability to enact a continuing resolution. I do 
not see that the need to pass continuing resolutions creates a ``crisis 
atmosphere'' as some have portrayed.
  Rather, the pressure to pass the annual spending bills stems from a 
sincere desire--at least on this Senator's part--to fulfill Congress's 
constitutional obligation to exercise the power of the purse. It stems 
from our desire to make intelligent decisions about programs that 
deserve more funding than was provided in the prior year, and to reduce 
or cut off funding for other programs that aren't working, or which are 
a lower priority within the constraints of the budget resolution.
  Mr. President, if Senators feel that biennial budgeting is wise, then 
let us enact a biennial budget. If Members feel that the amount of 
discretionary spending should be reduced for certain programs, then let 
us debate amendments to the appropriations bills or to the budget 
resolution. But let's not abdicate our responsibilities by putting the 
whole operation on autopilot.
  Finally, I would observe that at the end of the last Congress it was 
not the continuing resolution that was laden with extraneous items. It 
was rather the tax bill that contained a host of disparate and costly 
items, many of which were new to members of the Senate. And what was 
one of the primary

[[Page S430]]

drivers of that tax legislation? The need to extend expiring tax 
breaks. I wonder how Senators would feel about a formula-driven 
approach to automatically extend expiring tax provisions?
  This isn't a position that I am advocating, but it illustrates the 
point that a continuing resolution is not a ploy by the Appropriations 
Committee to pressure Members into supporting appropriations bills.
  We don't need an automatic formula of this sort. What we need to do 
is get to work, debate legislation, move it through in the regular 
order, and get it done. We should not abdicate our responsibilities and 
put government on autopilot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, while this amendment is well intended, I 
believe it will make the circumstance even worse, because it will put 
Government on automatic pilot.
  Madam President, more seriously, the automatic CR proposed by the 
Senator guarantees funding levels; therefore, CBO would score the 
proposal as effectively prefunding the 2008 bills. Thus, if adopted, 
this amendment will be scored by the Congressional Budget Office with 
increasing direct spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. The last 
time CBO scored this bill, this proposal, they put an estimate of $566 
billion on this amendment.
  The pending amendment deals with matters within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on the Budget. I therefore raise a point of order that 
the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974.
  Mr. DeMINT. We get lots of scores around this place. This is not 
spending. Pursuant to section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
Act, I move to waive the point of order, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 25, nays 72, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Allard
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--72

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Inouye
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 25, the nays are 
72. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, if I could have a brief moment to 
address the majority.
  We had a good debate on my first amendment, amendment No. 11, to 
expand the definitions of earmarks in a way that the American people 
could understand and see. I appreciate the Senator from Illinois 
participating in a good and open debate. The motion was to table that 
amendment, but, with bipartisan support, we defeated the motion to 
table. And as a customary way of courtesy, I think, in the Senate, we 
normally accept a voice vote for amendments that are not tabled.
  I ask unanimous consent that amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the managers on the floor at this 
time. I do not wish to interrupt the flow of the discussion. I would 
like to speak briefly on another matter, to speak for a very few 
minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, if I could be recognized to take care 
of a few housekeeping details, we would then listen to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.


                 Amendments Nos. 19, 28, and 29 En Bloc

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the 
pending amendment aside and call up amendments Nos. 19, 28, and 29 en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 19 to amendment No. 4.
       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 28 to amendment No. 3.
       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 29.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                            AMENDMENT NO. 19

             (Purpose: To include a reporting requirement)

       On page 8, line 4 of the amendment, strike ``expense.''.'' 
     and insert the following: ``expense.
       ``(i) A Member, officer, or employee who travels on an 
     aircraft operated or paid for by a carrier not licenced by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration shall file a report with 
     the Secretary of the Senate not later than 60 days after the 
     date on which such flight is taken. The report shall 
     include--
       ``(1) the date of such flight;
       ``(2) the destination of such flight;
       ``(3) the owner or lessee of the aircraft;
       ``(4) the purpose of such travel;
       ``(5) the persons on such flight (except for any person 
     flying the aircraft); and
       ``(6) the charter rate paid for such flight.''.
       On page 9, line 21 of the amendment, strike ``committee 
     pays'' and insert the following: ``committee--

       ``(I) pays''

       On page 10, line 5 of the amendment, strike ``taken.'' and 
     insert the following: ``taken; and

       ``(II) files a report with the Secretary of the Senate not 
     later than 60 days after the date on which such flight is 
     taken, such report shall include--

       ``(aa) the date of such flight;
       ``(bb) the destination of such flight;
       ``(cc) the owner or lessee of the aircraft;
       ``(dd) the purpose of such travel;
       ``(ee) the persons on such flight (except for any person 
     flying the aircraft); and
       ``(ff) the charter rate paid for such flight.''.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 28

            (Purpose: To provide congressional transparency)

       On page 4, strike line 11 through line 10, page 5, and 
     insert the following:

     that portion of the conference report that has not been 
     stricken and any modification of total amounts appropriated 
     necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from 
     the conference report;
       (B) the question shall be debatable; and
       (C) no further amendment shall be in order; and
       (3) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill 
     and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the 
     House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.

[[Page S431]]

       (d) Any Matter.--In this section, the term ``any matter'' 
     means any new matter, including general legislation, 
     unauthorized appropriations, and non-germane matter.

     SEC. 102A. REFORM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS IN 
                   THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``9.(a) On a point of order made by any Senator:
       ``(1) No new or general legislation nor any unauthorized 
     appropriation may be included in any general appropriation 
     bill.
       ``(2) No amendment may be received to any general 
     appropriation bill the effect of which will be to add an 
     unauthorized appropriation to the bill.
       ``(3) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any 
     amendment between the Houses, or any amendment thereto, in 
     relation to a general appropriation bill.
       ``(b)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1) 
     against a Senate bill or amendment is sustained--
       ``(A) the new or general legislation or unauthorized 
     appropriation shall be struck from the bill or amendment; and
       ``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated 
     necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from 
     the bill or amendment shall be made.
       ``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1) against 
     an Act of the House of Representatives is sustained when the 
     Senate is not considering an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, then an amendment to the House bill is deemed to 
     have been adopted that--
       ``(A) strikes the new or general legislation or 
     unauthorized appropriation from the bill; and
       ``(B) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts 
     appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the 
     matter struck from the bill;
       ``(c) If the point of order against an amendment under 
     subparagraph (a)(2) is sustained, then the amendment shall be 
     out of order and may not be considered.
       ``(d)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(3) 
     against a Senate amendment is sustained, then--
       ``(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from 
     the amendment;
       ``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated 
     necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from 
     the amendment shall be made; and
       ``(C) after all other points of order under this paragraph 
     have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider 
     the amendment as so modified.
       ``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(3) against 
     a House of Representatives amendment is sustained, then--
       ``(A) an amendment to the House amendment is deemed to have 
     been adopted that--
       ``(i) strikes the new or general legislation or 
     unauthorized appropriation from the House amendment; and
       ``(ii) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts 
     appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the 
     matter struck from the House amendment; and
       ``(B) after all other points of order under this paragraph 
     have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider 
     the question of whether to concur with further amendment.
       ``(e) The disposition of a point of order made under any 
     other paragraph of this rule, or under any other Standing 
     Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does 
     not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under 
     subparagraph (a) with respect to the same matter.
       ``(f) A point of order under subparagraph (a) may be waived 
     only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is 
     taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect 
     to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer 
     shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths 
     of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
       ``(g) Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it 
     shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of 
     order that several provisions of a general appropriation bill 
     or an amendment between the Houses on a general appropriation 
     bill violate subparagraph (a). The Presiding Officer may 
     sustain the point of order as to some or all of the 
     provisions against which the Senator raised the point of 
     order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of 
     order as to some or all of the provisions against which the 
     Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions 
     against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of 
     order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph. 
     Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, 
     any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in 
     accordance with subparagraph (f), as it applies to some or 
     all of the provisions against which the point of order was 
     raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance 
     with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the 
     Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator 
     may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a 
     point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions 
     on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
       ``(h) For purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(1) The term `new or general legislation' has the meaning 
     given that term when it is used in paragraph 2 of this rule.
       ``(2)(A) The term `unauthorized appropriation' means an 
     appropriation--
       ``(i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty 
     stipulation (unless the appropriation has been specifically 
     authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an 
     estimate submitted in accordance with law); or
       ``(ii) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically 
     authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically 
     authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an 
     estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be 
     appropriated.
       ``(B) An appropriation is not specifically authorized if it 
     is restricted or directed to, or authorized to be obligated 
     or expended for the benefit of, an identifiable person, 
     program, project, entity, or jurisdiction by earmarking or 
     other specification, whether by name or description, in a 
     manner that is so restricted, directed, or authorized that it 
     applies only to a single identifiable person, program, 
     project, entity, or jurisdiction, unless the identifiable 
     person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction to which 
     the restriction, direction, or authorization applies is 
     described or otherwise clearly identified in a law or Treaty 
     stipulation (or an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or in the estimate submitted 
     in accordance with law) that specifically provides for the 
     restriction, direction, or authorization of appropriation for 
     such person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction.''.
       (b) Lobbying on Behalf of Recipients of Federal Funds.--The 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is amended by adding after 
     section 5 the following:

     ``SEC. 5A. REPORTS BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--A recipient of Federal funds shall file 
     a report as required by section 5(a) containing--
       ``(1) the name of any lobbyist registered under this Act to 
     whom the recipient paid money to lobby on behalf of the 
     Federal funding received by the recipient; and
       ``(2) the amount of money paid as described in paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `recipient of 
     Federal funds' means the recipient of Federal funds 
     constituting an award, grant, or loan.''.
       (c) Prohibition on Obligation of Funds for Appropriations 
     Earmarks Included Only in Congressional Reports.--
       (1) In general.--No Federal agency may obligate any funds 
     made available in an appropriation Act to implement an 
     earmark that is included in a congressional report 
     accompanying the appropriation Act, unless the earmark is 
     also included in the appropriation Act.
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       (A) The term ``assistance'' includes an award, grant, loan, 
     loan guarantee, contract, or other expenditure.
       (B) The term ``congressional report'' means a report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate, or a joint explanatory statement of a 
     committee of conference.
       (C) The term ``earmark'' means a provision that specifies 
     the identity of an entity to receive assistance and the 
     amount of the assistance.
       (D) The term ``entity'' includes a State or locality.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to 
     appropriation Acts enacted after December 31, 2007.

     SEC. 103. EARMARKS.

       The Standing Rules of the Senate are amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                              ``RULE XLIV

                               ``earmarks

       ``1. In this rule--
       ``(1) the term `earmark' means a provision that specifies 
     the identity of an entity (by


                            AMENDMENT NO. 29

            (Purpose: To provide congressional transparency)

       On page 4, strike line 11 through line 2, page 5, and 
     insert the following:

     that portion of the conference report that has not been 
     stricken and any modification of total amounts appropriated 
     necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from 
     the conference report;
       (B) the question shall be debatable; and
       (C) no further amendment shall be in order; and
       (3) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill 
     and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the 
     House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.
       (d) Any Matter.--In this section, the term ``any matter'' 
     means any new matter, including general legislation, 
     unauthorized appropriations, and non-germane matter.

[[Page S432]]

     SEC. 102A. REFORM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS IN 
                   THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``9.(a) On a point of order made by any Senator:
       ``(1) No new or general legislation nor any unauthorized 
     appropriation may be included in any general appropriation 
     bill.
       ``(2) No amendment may be received to any general 
     appropriation bill the effect of which will be to add an 
     unauthorized appropriation to the bill.
       ``(3) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any 
     amendment between the Houses, or any amendment thereto, in 
     relation to a general appropriation bill.
       ``(b)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1) 
     against a Senate bill or amendment is sustained--
       ``(A) the new or general legislation or unauthorized 
     appropriation shall be struck from the bill or amendment; and
       ``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated 
     necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from 
     the bill or amendment shall be made.
       ``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1) against 
     an Act of the House of Representatives is sustained when the 
     Senate is not considering an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, then an amendment to the House bill is deemed to 
     have been adopted that--
       ``(A) strikes the new or general legislation or 
     unauthorized appropriation from the bill; and
       ``(B) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts 
     appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the 
     matter struck from the bill;
       ``(c) If the point of order against an amendment under 
     subparagraph (a)(2) is sustained, then the amendment shall be 
     out of order and may not be considered.
       ``(d)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(3) 
     against a Senate amendment is sustained, then--
       ``(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from 
     the amendment;
       ``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated 
     necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from 
     the amendment shall be made; and
       ``(C) after all other points of order under this paragraph 
     have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider 
     the amendment as so modified.
       ``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(3) against 
     a House of Representatives amendment is sustained, then--
       ``(A) an amendment to the House amendment is deemed to have 
     been adopted that--
       ``(i) strikes the new or general legislation or 
     unauthorized appropriation from the House amendment; and
       ``(ii) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts 
     appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the 
     matter struck from the House amendment; and
       ``(B) after all other points of order under this paragraph 
     have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider 
     the question of whether to concur with further amendment.
       ``(e) The disposition of a point of order made under any 
     other paragraph of this rule, or under any other Standing 
     Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does 
     not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under 
     subparagraph (a) with respect to the same matter.
       ``(f) A point of order under subparagraph (a) may be waived 
     only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is 
     taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect 
     to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer 
     shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths 
     of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
       ``(g) Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it 
     shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of 
     order that several provisions of a general appropriation bill 
     or an amendment between the Houses on a general appropriation 
     bill violate subparagraph (a). The Presiding Officer may 
     sustain the point of order as to some or all of the 
     provisions against which the Senator raised the point of 
     order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of 
     order as to some or all of the provisions against which the 
     Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions 
     against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of 
     order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph. 
     Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, 
     any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in 
     accordance with subparagraph (f), as it applies to some or 
     all of the provisions against which the point of order was 
     raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance 
     with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the 
     Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator 
     may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a 
     point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions 
     on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
       ``(h) For purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(1) The term `new or general legislation' has the meaning 
     given that term when it is used in paragraph 2 of this rule.
       ``(2)(A) The term `unauthorized appropriation' means an 
     appropriation--
       ``(i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty 
     stipulation (unless the appropriation has been specifically 
     authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an 
     estimate submitted in accordance with law); or
       ``(ii) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically 
     authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically 
     authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an 
     estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be 
     appropriated.
       ``(B) An appropriation is not specifically authorized if it 
     is restricted or directed to, or authorized to be obligated 
     or expended for the benefit of, an identifiable person, 
     program, project, entity, or jurisdiction by earmarking or 
     other specification, whether by name or description, in a 
     manner that is so restricted, directed, or authorized that it 
     applies only to a single identifiable person, program, 
     project, entity, or jurisdiction, unless the identifiable 
     person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction to which 
     the restriction, direction, or authorization applies is 
     described or otherwise clearly identified in a law or Treaty 
     stipulation (or an Act or resolution previously passed by the 
     Senate during the same session or in the estimate submitted 
     in accordance with law) that specifically provides for the 
     restriction, direction, or authorization of appropriation for 
     such person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction.''.
       (b) Lobbying on Behalf of Recipients of Federal Funds.--The 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is amended by adding after 
     section 5 the following:

     ``SEC. 5A. REPORTS BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--A recipient of Federal funds shall file 
     a report as required by section 5(a) containing--
       ``(1) the name of any lobbyist registered under this Act to 
     whom the recipient paid money to lobby on behalf of the 
     Federal funding received by the recipient; and
       ``(2) the amount of money paid as described in paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `recipient of 
     Federal funds' means the recipient of Federal funds 
     constituting an award, grant, or loan.''.
       (c) Prohibition on Obligation of Funds for Appropriations 
     Earmarks Included Only in Congressional Reports.--
       (1) In general.--No Federal agency may obligate any funds 
     made available in an appropriation Act to implement an 
     earmark that is included in a congressional report 
     accompanying the appropriation Act, unless the earmark is 
     also included in the appropriation Act.
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       (A) The term ``assistance'' includes an award, grant, loan, 
     loan guarantee, contract, or other expenditure.
       (B) The term ``congressional report'' means a report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate, or a joint explanatory statement of a 
     committee of conference.
       (C) The term ``earmark'' means a provision that specifies 
     the identity of an entity to receive assistance and the 
     amount of the assistance.
       (D) The term ``entity'' includes a State or locality.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to 
     appropriation Acts enacted after December 31, 2007.

  Mr. BENNETT. Senator McCain will have appropriate comments to make on 
these amendments at some future time.


                     Amendment No. 25, as Modified

  Madam President, I, also, ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
25, offered by Senator Ensign, be modified in the form I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENATE FIREWALL FOR DEFENSE SPENDING.

       For purposes of sections 301 and 302 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the levels of new budget authority and 
     outlays and the allocations for the Committees on 
     Appropriations shall be further divided and separately 
     enforced under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 in the following categories:
       (1) For the defense allocation, the amount of discretionary 
     spending assumed in the budget resolution for the defense 
     function (050).
       (2) For the nondefense allocation, the amount of 
     discretionary spending assumed for all other functions of the 
     budget.

  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I intend to, briefly--if the Senator 
has a consent request, I will be glad to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, if the Senator would yield, I have a 
very similar 30-second housekeeping matter.

[[Page S433]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield for that purpose.
  Mr. VITTER. I appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                      Amendment No. 9, as Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I request to go to the regular order 
regarding the Vitter amendment No. 9 and send a revision of that 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 51, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 242. SPOUSE LOBBYING MEMBER.

       (a) In General.--Section 207(e) of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 241, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(5) Spouses.--Any person who is the spouse of a Member of 
     Congress and who was not serving as a registered lobbyist at 
     least 1 year prior to the election of that Member of Congress 
     to office and who, after the election of such Member, 
     knowingly lobbies on behalf of a client for compensation any 
     Member of Congress or is associated with any such lobbying 
     activity by an employer of that spouse shall be punished as 
     provided in section 216 of this title.''.

  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Iraq is the overarching issue of our 
time. American lives, American values, America's role in the world is 
at stake.
  As the November election made clear, the American people oppose this 
war, and an even greater number oppose sending more troops to Iraq.
  The American people are demanding a change in course in Iraq. 
Instead, the President is accelerating the same failed course he has 
pursued for nearly 4 years. He must understand Congress will not 
endorse this course.
  The President's decision to send more American troops into the 
cauldron of civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the 
advice of his own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the 
American people and will only compound our original mistake in going to 
war in Iraq in the first place.
  This morning, the Secretary of State testified that the Iraqi 
Government ``is . . . on borrowed time.'' In fact, time is already up. 
The Iraqi Government needs to make the political compromises necessary 
to end this civil war. The answer is not more troops, it is a political 
settlement.
  The President talked about strengthening relations with Congress. He 
should begin by seeking authority from Congress for any escalation of 
the war.
  The mission of our Armed Forces today in Iraq no longer bears any 
resemblance whatsoever to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. 
The Iraq war resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam 
Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an 
operational relationship with al-Qaida, and was in defiance of the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions.
  Not one Member of Congress--not one--would have voted in favor of the 
resolution if they thought they were sending American troops into a 
civil war.
  The President owes it to the American people to seek approval for 
this new mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a 
rubberstamp for the President's failed strategy. We should insist on a 
policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of the brave men and women in 
uniform who have served so gallantly in Iraq.
  President Bush has been making up his mind on Iraq ever since the 
election. Before he escalates the war, the American people deserve a 
voice in his decision.
  He is the Commander in Chief, but he is still accountable to the 
people. Our system of checks and balances gives Congress a key role in 
decisions of war and peace.
  We know an escalation of troops into this civil war will not work. We 
have increased our military presence in the past, and each time the 
violence has increased and the political problems have persisted.
  Despite what the President says, his own generals are on the record 
opposing a surge in troops.
  Last November 15, 2006, General Abizaid was unequivocal that 
increasing our troop commitment is not the answer.
  He said:

       I've met with every divisional commander--General Casey, 
     the corps commander, General Dempsey--we all talked together. 
     And I said, ``in your professional opinion, if we were to 
     bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably 
     to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all 
     said no.

  On December 29, General Casey said:

       The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main 
     burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the 
     government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about 
     reconciliation and dealing with the militias. . . .They can 
     continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at 
     base their problems.

  Time and again our leaders in Vietnam escalated our military 
presence, and each new escalation of force led to the next. We 
escalated the war instead of ending it. And similar to Vietnam, there 
is no military solution to Iraq, only political. The President is the 
last person in America to understand that.
  We must not only speak against the surge in troops, we must act to 
prevent it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 30 to Amendment No. 3

      (Purpose: To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity.)

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I now ask that amendment No. 30 be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Ms. Collins, Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, 
     and Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment numbered 30 to 
     amendment No. 3.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment, 
along with Senators Collins, Obama, McCain, and the occupant of the 
Chair, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.
  This amendment would create a Senate Office of Public Integrity. The 
matter before the Chamber now is to reform the rules by which Senate 
ethics and the conduct of lobbyists are governed. It is the contention 
of those of us who sponsor this amendment that reform of the rules is 
critically necessary and important following the scandals of recent 
years. But it is also important to reform the enforcement process by 
which those rules are applied.

  If we are about the business of restoring the public's trust in this 
institution and its Members and the willingness of this great 
institution to independently and aggressively investigate allegations 
of misconduct among Members and then to hold those Members accountable, 
it seems to me we can no longer be comfortable or content with a 
process that allows us to investigate charges against us and then reach 
a judgment about what the response should be to us.
  The office that would be created by this amendment would investigate 
allegations of Member or staff violations of Senate rules or other 
standards of conduct. It would present cases of probable ethics 
violations to the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate which would 
retain the final authority, consistent with tradition and law.
  This office of public integrity would make recommendations to the 
Ethics

[[Page S434]]

Committee that it report to appropriate Federal or State authorities 
any substantial evidence of a violation by a Member or staff of any law 
applicable to the performance of his or her duties or responsibility.
  Finally, the Senate office of public integrity, a new office that 
would be created by this amendment, would approve or deny approval of 
privately funded trips for Members or staff, subject to the review of 
the Ethics Committee.
  I called up this amendment to inform our colleagues that this group 
of cosponsors was going to go forward with the amendment and to urge 
that our colleagues take a look at it, consider it, ask us questions 
about it, and that we look forward to a full debate on it next week.
  Earlier, I failed to say that Senators Feingold and Kerry are also 
cosponsors of the amendment.
  Having introduced it, called it up, I now ask unanimous consent that 
this amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was not sure this would come up. I know 
it has been an issue that has been discussed. But in view of the vote 
on this issue when we dealt with S. 1 in the previous Congress, I 
thought perhaps it would not come up. Because in the previous Congress, 
this was defeated 67 to 30. While we have had some turnover in the 
Senate, we haven't had a sufficient turnover to obviate 67 votes. Even 
if every new Senator who has come would vote with the 30, that would 
probably take them to 40 and is still not enough to pass.
  We had a vigorous debate about this in the previous Congress. I don't 
need to rehearse too many of the issues that were discussed. Just for 
the record, the Senate does have a record of dealing with its own 
Members. Under the Constitution, it is the Senate that is charged with 
punishing its Members for misconduct. And the Senate has done that 
historically and sometimes courageously.
  Interestingly enough, the majority has dealt with Members of the 
majority. Senator Packwood, who was a valued Member of this body, 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the most prestigious 
positions a Senator can hold, the master of his craft--I don't know of 
many Senators who knew the finances of this country any better than 
Senator Packwood--engaged in activity which the Ethics Committee 
unanimously decided was inappropriate. Our current Republican leader, 
Senator McConnell, was at the time the chairman of the Ethics Committee 
and recognized that the removal of Senator Packwood would undoubtedly, 
as it did, result in the shift of a seat from the Republican side to 
the Democratic side. I don't think you will find any more loyal 
partisan to the Republicans than Senator McConnell.
  In that position, with existing procedures, not requiring any office 
of public integrity, Senator McConnell, as chairman of the Ethics 
Committee, led a unanimous vote out of the Ethics Committee against the 
interests of Senator Packwood, and Senator Packwood resigned. He was, 
indeed, replaced by Senator Wyden, a Democrat. The Republicans had a 
seat which they lost and have never gotten back.
  On the other side of the aisle, Senator Torricelli was dealt with by 
the Ethics Committee in a manner that caused him to resign his 
nomination and, therefore, any hope he may have had of reelection. We 
have a history in this body of dealing with our Members who act 
inappropriately with the existing procedures.
  S. 1 is all about transparency. Most of the debate has been about 
transparency, getting more information out. The more information we get 
out, the better prepared we are within our existing procedures to deal 
with those of our Members who may or may not act as they should.
  For all of those reasons, the Senate, by a vote of 67 to 30, said: We 
are capable under the present circumstances, under the present rules, 
under the present structure, to deal effectively with those Members who 
act inappropriately. I would expect the vote would be very close to the 
same this time. There is much more that can be said and that has been 
said. But given the history of this, that is probably a sufficient 
statement on my part.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah. I was 
thinking, there is much more that could be said and much that has been 
said. Undoubtedly next week much more will be said. The vote was 67 to 
30 last time. Those of us who support this remain undaunted in our 
belief that we can improve the process. The process of ethics and 
ethical adjudications has been, with all respect, more problematic in 
the other body of the Congress, but we have an opportunity here, as we 
consider and I believe pass what will be landmark legislation with 
regard to the attempt of this great legislative body to set the highest 
standards of conduct for itself and those who interact with us, to also 
complete the mission while we are doing so by raising the independence 
of the enforcement process, still leaving the Senate Ethics Committee, 
composed of Senators, with the final judgment on what should happen in 
every case.
  First, about the vote last year, I suppose the most general response 
I would offer is that hope springs eternal and the power of reason of 
our arguments will touch some of our colleagues. Secondly, we do have 
some new Members who are very focused on this legislation and upgrading 
the rules by which we govern ourselves and the process by which those 
rules are enforced.
  Finally, a lot of things have been said here about Iraq and the 
message the people were sending last year about Iraq. It seems to me 
they were sending at least as strong a message about the way we in 
Congress do our business. I saw one public opinion survey or exit poll 
that showed more people said they voted based on what were ethical 
wrongdoings here in Congress than on any other issue. I begin this 
debate to indicate to our colleagues that my cosponsors and I intend to 
go forward with this amendment next week.
  I thank my friend from Utah for beginning what I know will be a 
serious and elevating discussion.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I would just like a few minutes to 
address the Senate. I have some deep concerns about some things that 
are going on.
  I have been really encouraged since the new majority took over. We 
have had some great bipartisan meetings, and we have talked about 
trying to create a new spirit of cooperation here in the Senate and to 
work together. I think a lot of us have been trying to do that, and it 
has been going reasonably well.
  Today I had the opportunity to offer an amendment, an amendment that 
will contribute to the transparency of what we call earmarks or the 
favors that sometimes lobbyists and Members work out where we put money 
in bills for specific things. We just wanted to make that transparent 
and to include all earmarks, not just a few.
  We had a good debate. I have to admit it was the most fun I have had 
since I have been in the Senate. I was given 45 minutes of time before 
the vote at 2 o'clock, and Senator Coburn came down to speak on my 
behalf. Senator Durbin asked me to yield, and I gave him all the time 
he wanted. I even yielded the last 2 minutes and gave him the last 
word. We had a good debate about it.
  The majority had decided to try to table that amendment so we 
wouldn't have a vote, so the motion was to table the DeMint amendment. 
We had a good vote. It is always exciting to see how votes come in. 
When they held up the final sheet, 51 had voted not to table the 
amendment and 46 had voted to table it. It wasn't a partisan vote. It 
wasn't party line at all. That is what was kind of unusual.
  Again, I think the spirit of what we have been trying to do is not 
just to

[[Page S435]]

look at the party but to look at the issue. I think a lot of folks 
decided that if we are going to have disclosure of earmarks, let's have 
disclosure of all of them, and this one happens to take it from 5 
percent to 100.
  But I would like to thank some of my colleagues, my Democratic 
colleagues who thought about this amendment, who listened to the 
debate, including Senator Landrieu and Senator Kerry, Senator Cantwell, 
Senator Webb, Senator Tester, Senator Harkin, Senator Feingold, Senator 
Obama, and my good friend Senator Lieberman, who took the time to 
listen to the debate and decided that this shouldn't be tabled, that we 
should have a vote on it. Normally what happens in the Chamber--in 
fact, I have never seen it done any other way--is if a motion to table 
fails, then the majority would accept the amendment as a voice vote 
because the will of the Senate has spoken and a majority have expressed 
their support of that amendment.
  But something happened on the way to civility and camaraderie here 
today. Instead of the normal procedure of the majority conceding that 
Republicans and Democrats wanted to pass this amendment, they did not 
agree when I asked that the amendment be accepted. They objected. Now I 
am told that after a lot of backroom work, they want to bring the 
amendment back to the floor, and apparently they have convinced some of 
my colleagues to change their votes. I have to say, I know when I was 
in the House, I saw my party guilty of that, after a Medicare vote 
being open 3 hours and arm-twisting and all kinds of carrying on.
  I think we all decided after the last election that maybe the 
American people didn't want us to do business that way. I think the 
will of the Senate has spoken on this amendment, and I think the issue 
is bigger than on my particular amendment; it is, if we are going to 
have ethics reform, let's be ethical about the process of voting on 
this reform. We had a good, open, and honest debate.
  The amendment is simple and clear. It is actually Nancy Pelosi's 
amendment from the House side which has been vetted and voted on and 
discussed. I am aware there is some misinformation now going on about 
the amendment, but I would just encourage my colleagues--I would 
encourage my Republican colleagues because some of them voted against 
this--even if they don't like the amendment, let's support the idea of 
just following normal courtesies here in the Senate.
  I have often heard, since I came from the House side, that the Senate 
is a much different place, that we are civil, we respect each other's 
rights. I am afraid a lot of that is slipping away here. I would just 
like to make an appeal today that my colleagues accept this amendment. 
The will of the Senate has spoken. It obviously can be worked on and 
improved in conference. The majority will control the conference. I 
think it will speak well for the Senate that we are willing to shine 
the light of day onto all of our earmarks so the American people can 
see it.
  So, Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. DeMINT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

                          [Quorum No. 2 Leg.]

     DeMint
     Durbin
     Klobuchar
     Reid,

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present. The majority leader 
is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the 
attendance of absent Senators. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 6, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Coburn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Lott
     McCain
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Johnson
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators voting who did 
not answer the quorum call, a quorum is now present.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                            Amendment No. 11

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, these are the times when some of us who have 
served in the House yearn for the House procedures. But we are in the 
Senate. We live by the Senate procedures, and we have to work our way 
through this.
  Everyone keep in mind, the underlying legislation that is bipartisan 
in nature, sponsored by the Democratic and Republican leaders, is good 
legislation. It is a significant step forward to anything that has 
happened in this country since Watergate: ethics reform, lobbying 
reform, earmark reform--a very sound piece of legislation.
  I am going to be patient and listen to what others have to say. I do 
not know exactly, but I think we have 12 amendments that are pending, 
maybe 13, and we are going to try to work our way through those.
  I have told my friend Senator DeMint that I know his heart is in the 
right place. He believes in what he is doing. But this amendment he has 
offered is going to take a little more time.
  Everyone should understand that the DeMint amendment strikes the 
definition of ``earmark'' in the underlying Reid-McConnell substitute 
and replaces it with language that is basically the House-passed 
definition.
  I am happy to see the House doing their 100 hours and moving things 
along very quickly. I admire and respect that. But having served in 
that body, I know how quickly they can move things and, frankly, 
sometimes how much thoughtful consideration goes into matters that are 
on that House floor.
  With this matter Senator DeMint is trying to change, a lot of time 
went into this--a lot of time--weeks of staff working so that Senator 
McConnell and I could agree to offer something in a bipartisan fashion.
  The earmark provision is good. It is in the underlying bill. If we 
have an opportunity to vote on the DeMint amendment, I hope it is 
rejected because the definition that Reid-McConnell has is very much 
preferable to what Senator DeMint is trying to do with the ``earmark'' 
definition.
  I repeat, the underlying legislation that deals with earmarks was 
very carefully vetted by--and I repeat--weeks of work by our respective 
staffs. And it is stronger in various ways than DeMint.

[[Page S436]]

  The underlying Senate definition of ``earmark'' was included in last 
year's ethics bill. We have refined and defined it a little better now. 
The relevant committees worked with us on a bipartisan basis. We added 
language to the underlying section dealing with earmarks that passed 90 
to 8 last year.
  First, we added language to address the Duke Cunningham situation. 
Congressman Cunningham wrote his earmarks without actually naming the 
specific defense contractors he intended to receive Federal contracts. 
And he never mentioned the defense contractors, but there is only one 
defense contractor in the world that met his specific definition of 
that legislation. Under DeMint that would not have to be listed.
  Under the new definition in the Reid-McConnell substitute, a Member 
cannot evade the disclosure requirement by clever drafting. They cannot 
do that. An earmark is present if the entity to receive Federal support 
is named or if it is ``described in such a manner that only one entity 
would qualify.''
  Second, the substitute includes an improved definition of ``targeted 
tax benefit.'' Under the DeMint definition, a tax benefit would only 
qualify as an earmark if it benefited ``10 or fewer beneficiaries.'' 
But that leaves open the possibility of drafting mischief. And what 
kind of mischief could you draft? For example, someone could easily 
write a provision for 11 or 15 or 50 beneficiaries to evade the 
definition.
  The Reid-McConnell definition says a tax earmark is anything which 
``has the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to 
a limited group of taxpayers when compared with similarly situated 
taxpayers.'' This subjective standard will capture more earmarks, by 
far, than the rigid DeMint definition--this ``10 or fewer 
beneficiaries.''
  Actually, the Reid-McConnell definition is based on the definition of 
``targeted tax benefit.'' Where did we come up with this? Senator Judd 
Gregg, in his line-item veto bill. That is where we got that. I do not 
like the line-item veto bill, but I like his definition of ``targeted 
tax benefit.'' That is where we got that. I think Senator Gregg has 
found a sensible definition for this illusive concept.
  Third, the Reid-McConnell substitute requires Members to certify they 
have no personal financial stake in the earmark. This seems to be a 
commonsense requirement that was not in the underlying bill. We added 
that to it.
  It is important that the Senate rules be amended slowly and with 
careful bipartisan deliberation. My friend, the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina--South Carolina--north, south; they are close 
together--the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has said this 
is exactly like the House provision. I say to my friend that is one of 
the problems I have with it because I, frankly, do not think they spent 
the time we have on this.

  The House can change its rules at will, and they do. We cannot. The 
Senate is a continuing body. Our rules are permanent. It takes 67 votes 
to change a Senate rule. So when we write a Senate rule, we write it in 
concrete.
  Earmark disclosure will be a major change in the way the Senate 
works. We should adopt the Reid-McConnell version rather than the House 
version in the DeMint amendment.
  If we need to revisit the issue later, we can do that. I would appeal 
to my friend from South Carolina. I repeat: I know you are doing this 
because you think it is the right thing to do. But take the opportunity 
to look at what is here. It is better than the House version--so much 
better.
  I have only touched upon why it is better than the House version. 
And, frankly, as we all know, we are going to have to do some work in 
conference. If the House version is what we send over there, there is 
no way in the world to improve this.
  So I would say to my friend: Let's take another look at this. Do we 
need to vote on this? I hope not. This should not be a partisan issue. 
This bill is not meant to be partisan. That is why we worked so hard. 
One of the hardest provisions staff had to work on to get McConnell and 
me to agree was this earmark provision. Senator McConnell and I are 
members of the Appropriations Committee--well, I used to be for 20 
years. I know the appropriations process very well. I think, with all 
due respect, the DeMint amendment will weaken the earmark provision. 
Let's see what we come up with with the underlying amendment that Reid 
and McConnell submitted to the Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I see that the majority leader was discussing this 
bill. While I have a number of Members sitting here, if I could respond 
to the majority leader. I very much appreciate his consideration. I 
appreciate what happened today. We had a good debate. Some of you 
listened. We had a good vote on the motion to table, and we won that 
vote.
  As any of you know, if you have ever been through the process of 
trying to get an amendment up and trying to develop the support you 
need, to win a vote like that, it is a good day in the Senate.
  I am afraid it is starting to feel a little like the House. I 
remember when I was in the House when the Medicare bill would not pass, 
the Medicare Part D, and we kept the vote open for 3 hours twisting 
arms, changing minds until the Republicans got what they wanted. I had 
hoped the Senate would be different. Our rules are different. We can't 
hold the vote open that long. But by using tabling and then bringing it 
back up, as we are doing now, we are doing exactly the same thing.
  I will take exception to the House and Nancy Pelosi not taking the 
time to work this through. I think anyone who looks at the language 
will see that the Senate version only deals with 5 out of 100, 5 
percent of the earmarks that we pass. We have a chart from last year, 
when there were 12,800 earmarks. Under the Senate provision, only about 
500 would be included. The public is not going to believe that we are 
disclosing earmarks. So if we are going to disclose earmarks, let's 
disclose them all.
  The House did have the good sense, after seeing what that did to the 
ethical appearance of the House, when the Medicare bill was held open 
for 3 hours until the majority got what it wanted, to have in their 
ethics rules that you cannot--I will just read the rule. It says: 
Clause 2(a) of rule 20 is amended by inserting after the second 
sentence the following sentence: A record vote by electronic device 
shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of 
such vote.
  They know what that does to the appearance and the culture of the 
House. We didn't hold the vote open, but it has been less time than was 
held open for that Medicare vote, and we are back here revoting 
something after some arms have been twisted. If that is the culture we 
want in the Senate, I think we should stop saying that we have a higher 
culture than the House.
  I believe Speaker Pelosi is sincere in wanting to disclose what we 
are doing so the American people will know how we are spending their 
money. This is not a careless amendment. It is something that has been 
done with a lot of thought. We won this vote fair and square. It is 
going to happen to all of you. If this is how you want fellow Members 
treated, if any amendment we offer can be tabled and if you win your 
amendment, the majority can go off and twist some arms and change some 
minds and we can have another vote, if that is how we are going to do 
business, then I think it is time the American people know it, and we 
might as well set this whole ethics bill aside because it is all 
pretense anyway.
  I appreciate the opportunity to have a few people sitting here 
listening, but I can assure you that this amendment will improve this 
bill, and it will improve the perception of this Senate if we pass it.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to ask the Senator from South Carolina, what

[[Page S437]]

is the difference in his amendment from the underlying bill, and how 
does it improve the transparency we are all seeking?
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. I welcome any input into this 
amendment. We have adopted the exact language that Speaker Pelosi 
insisted on just for the definition of ``earmarks.'' The most important 
part to remember is, in the Senate bill, no matter what we do with 
transparency, it only applies to 5 percent of the earmarks. It doesn't 
apply to Federal earmarks, the type of earmarks that got Duke 
Cunningham in trouble. Those need to be disclosed. It doesn't apply to 
report language in conference reports which include 95 percent of all 
the earmarks we do. So there is no way for the media or the public to 
look in on what we do, regardless of how we try to do transparency on 
that 5 percent and say that we are doing anything to make this place 
more transparent. That is the main difference.
  We can get into the tax provisions. We used the definition the House 
did, but we do include tax-based earmarks or tariff-based earmarks. 
Again, in conference, we have the opportunity to work together and 
change it. But if we defeat this bill with misinformation right now and 
it doesn't go to conference as part of the mix, the public is going to 
know from day one that this idea of being open and transparent is just 
a scam. If we are going to do it, let's do it to all the earmarks, and 
then let's discuss what the best way is to do it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the Senator say that the earmarks that are 
covered in his amendment would include an earmark to a Federal agency 
as well as an earmark for a private university or some other private 
entity? Is that what he is saying, that he wanted to cover all the 
earmarks whether they are a specific earmark for a particular city and 
an agency such as the Corps of Engineers, a specific water project in a 
city? You just want that earmark to be known, who the sponsor is, just 
as if it were an earmark for funding for health research at a 
university; is that correct?
  Mr. DeMINT. The Senator has it right. We are not saying whether 
earmarks are good or bad. We are not saying that we have some and not 
others. All we are saying is that earmarks are designated spending. 
Whether it be Federal, non-Federal, or report language, it should be 
disclosed in the same way. This chart shows the number of earmarks in 
the 2006 budget of 12,852. The Senate bill would apply to only 534 of 
those. So if we are going to have disclosure of earmarks--and that is 
up to the Senate to decide--if we are going to say we are going to have 
disclosure, I think we need to include the 12,318 that we don't want to 
tell people about. People will not believe we are transparent. I think 
that is what both sides of the aisle want. That is the only thing this 
amendment does; it doesn't limit earmarks. It doesn't change anything 
except it defines them in a way that is open and honest.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator for the explanation. I think it 
is an excellent amendment. I thank him for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. REID. I couldn't hear the Senator. I am sorry. What did the 
Senator say?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 38 to Amendment No. 3

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the 
ranking member and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself 
     and Mr. Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 38 to 
     amendment No. 3.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To permit attendance of meetings with bona fide constituents)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FREE ATTENDANCE AT A BONA FIDE CONSTITUENT EVENT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph 1(c) of rule XXXV of the Senate 
     Rules is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) Subject to the restrictions in subparagraph (a)(2), 
     free attendance at a bona fide constituent event permitted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (h).''.
       (b) In General.--Paragraph 1 of rule XXXV of the Senate 
     Rules is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) A Member, officer or, employee may accept an offer 
     of free attendance at a convention, conference, symposium, 
     forum, panel discussion, dinner event, site visit, viewing, 
     reception, or similar event, provided by a sponsor of the 
     event, if--
       ``(A) the cost of any meal provided does not exceed $50;
       ``(B)(i) the event is sponsored by bona fide constituents 
     of, or a group that consists primarily of bona fide 
     constituents of, the Member (or the Member by whom the 
     officer or employee is employed); and
       ``(ii) the event will be attended by a group of at least 5 
     bona fide constituents or individuals employed by bona fide 
     constituents of the Member (or the Member by whom the officer 
     or employee is employed) provided that an individual 
     registered to lobby under the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     shall not attend the event; and
       ``(C)(i) the Member, officer, or employee participates in 
     the event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(ii) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in clause (1) may accept a sponsor's unsolicited 
     offer of free attendance at the event for an accompanying 
     individual if others in attendance will generally be 
     similarly accompanied or if such attendance is appropriate to 
     assist in the representation of the Senate.
       ``(3) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' has the same meaning as in subparagraph (d).
       ``(4) The Select Committee on Ethics shall issue guidelines 
     within 60 days after the enactment of this subparagraph on 
     determining the definition of the term `bona fide 
     constituent'.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of Senator 
Bennett and myself speaks to a problem that we see with this bill. And 
that is when you meet with a very small group of people, say, 10 or 
less, bona fide constituents, no lobbyists present, and you have a 
sandwich or there is a lunch, somebody puts food in front of you, maybe 
you eat two bites of it, maybe you don't eat any of it, maybe you eat 
all of it--we all know we have been through that--you are illegal 
unless there is some provision that you can accept the lunch.
  How many times have I gone to a speaking engagement, got involved, 
something is put in front of me. I don't touch it or maybe I touch it 
or maybe something is offered to me, maybe I eat one of it, maybe I eat 
two of it. It is hard to tell. With respect to these small, bona fide 
constituent events, one should be able to accept the meal, if one 
chooses, as long as the value of the meal is under $50. It seems to me 
that this is a reasonable amendment. The lobbyist is excluded, cannot 
be present. It is a bona fide constituent event. You can go to them at 
a Member's home. It can be a coffee. It can be a dinner. They happen 
all the time. I candidly see nothing wrong with it.
  Sometimes you have events where people bring little amounts of food 
that are shared. To put a pricetag on all of this, to have to decide 
whether it is de minimis or not, whether it is equal to a baseball cap 
or a cup of coffee is extraordinarily difficult in the real world where 
we operate. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  I yield to the ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the chairwoman for her 
consideration of this. As I pointed out in my opening statement when we 
got to consideration of this bill, virtually every American has an 
association with an

[[Page S438]]

entity that employs a lobbyist. If you go to the rotary club, there is 
a lobbyist for the rotary club here in Washington. If you go to the 
Girl Scouts, the Girl Scouts have a lobbyist in Washington. If you go 
to the PTA, they have a lobbyist here in Washington. A bill that says 
you can't accept anything from any institution or corporation or 
organization that has a lobbyist means that if the Girl Scouts come by 
and give you some cookies and you eat those cookies in the presence of 
the Girl Scouts who are there, you have violated the law. You have 
taken something, taken a gift from someone who is connected to an 
organization that employs a lobbyist. And the chairman heard what I had 
to say on this. We worked on it together. We have been working on it 
for the past couple of days and came up with a commonsense solution 
that removes the concern about this situation. I salute her and thank 
her for the way in which she has worked with me. We have something on 
which we both agree. We understand it is fairly widely accepted 
throughout the body. I am more than happy to act as a cosponsor to this 
amendment and hope the Senate will adopt it.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I misspoke. The way we have this 
drafted, it is at least 5--I think I said 10--it is at least 5 
constituents. I hope that is not a problem for anyone.
  I thank the ranking member. It has been a pleasure to work with him. 
I think we both feel similarly about this. This issue of what you 
accept at a meal is a difficult issue, dependent upon where you are and 
where you are located. I think this is fair, in view of the nature of 
events covering all States, low cost of living, rural and urban States. 
So it is at least five bona fide constituents--that is a member of the 
State, not a professional lobbyist, although a professional lobbyist 
can also be a constituent. For the purpose of this bill, they are 
excluded. I hope this will be agreed to. I know there are some Members 
who want to look at this. It is at the desk. I urge them to come down 
right away and look at it because we would like to voice vote it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 20 to Amendment No. 3

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 20 be called up and that 
it be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 20 to amendment No. 3.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate 
                          grassroots lobbying)

       Strike section 220 of the amendment (relating to disclosure 
     of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                  Amendment No. 37 to Amendment No. 3

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 37 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 37 to amendment No. 3.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require any recipient of a Federal award to disclose all 
                    lobbying and political advocacy)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY BY THE RECIPIENT OF 
                   ANY FEDERAL AWARD.

       The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 
     2006 (Public Law 109-282) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 5. DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY BY THE RECIPIENT 
                   OF ANY FEDERAL AWARD.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than December 31 of each year, 
     an entity that receives any Federal award shall provide to 
     each Federal entity that awarded or administered its grant an 
     annual report for the prior Federal fiscal year, certified by 
     the entity's chief executive officer or equivalent person of 
     authority, and setting forth--
       ``(1) the entity's name;
       ``(2) the entity's identification number; and
       ``(3)(A) a statement that the entity did not engage in 
     political advocacy; or
       ``(B) a statement that the entity did engage in political 
     advocacy, and setting forth for each award--
       ``(i) the award identification number;
       ``(ii) the amount or value of the award (including all 
     administrative and overhead costs awarded);
       ``(iii) a brief description of the purpose or purposes for 
     which the award was awarded;
       ``(iv) the identity of each Federal, State, and local 
     government entity awarding or administering the award and 
     program thereunder;
       ``(v) the name and entity identification number of each 
     individual, entity, or organization to whom the entity made 
     an award; and
       ``(vi) a brief description of the entity's political 
     advocacy, and a good faith estimate of the entity's 
     expenditures on political advocacy, including a list of any 
     lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995, foreign agent, or employee of a lobbying firm or 
     foreign agent employed by the entity to conduct such advocacy 
     and amounts paid to each lobbyist or foreign agent.
       ``(b) OMB Coordination.--The Office of Management and 
     Budget shall develop by regulation 1 standardized form for 
     the annual report that shall be accepted by every Federal 
     entity, and a uniform procedure by which each entity is 
     assigned 1 permanent and unique entity identification number.
       ``(c) Website.--Any information received under this section 
     shall be available on the website established under section 
     2(b).
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Political advocacy.--The term `political advocacy' 
     includes--
       ``(A) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to 
     influence legislation or agency action, including, but not 
     limited to monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements, 
     publicity, or similar activity;
       ``(B) participating or intervening in (including the 
     publishing or distributing of statements) any political 
     campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for 
     public office, including but not limited to monetary or in-
     kind contributions, endorsements, publicity, or similar 
     activity;
       ``(C) participating in any judicial litigation or agency 
     proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or 
     instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are 
     parties, other than litigation in which the entity or award 
     applicant--
       ``(i) is a defendant appearing in its own behalf;
       ``(ii) is defending its tax-exempt status; or
       ``(iii) is challenging a government decision or action 
     directed specifically at the powers, rights, or duties of 
     that entity or award applicant; and
       ``(D) allocating, disbursing, or contributing any funds or 
     in-kind support to any individual, entity, or organization 
     whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous 
     Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total 
     expenditures for that Federal fiscal year.
       ``(2) Entity and federal award.--The terms `entity' and 
     `Federal award' shall have the same meaning as in section 
     2(a).''.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly to this amendment 
before asking that it be set aside.
  Currently, Federal grant recipients are generally prohibited from 
using their Federal grant funds to lobby Congress or to influence 
legislation or appropriations. Current law also generally prohibits 
501(c)(4) civic leagues and social welfare organizations from all 
lobbying activities, even with their own funds, if they receive a 
Federal grant, loan or award. But these prohibitions do not prevent 
Federal grant recipients from lobbying or engaging in political 
advocacy. Most Federal grant recipients are free to use other parts of 
their budget, beyond their Federal grant, for lobbying or political 
advocacy. Even 501(c)(4) organizations whose prohibitions are more 
stringent can simply incorporate an affiliated organization to engage 
in lobbying activities or political advocacy.
  While the appropriateness of Federal grant recipients engaging in any 
lobbying or political advocacy, even with their own funds, could be 
debated, the least we should ask these Federal grant recipients is that 
they disclose their lobbying and political advocacy activities. Federal 
grant recipients who are engaging in lobbying should register under the 
current public disclosure requirements for lobbyists. The public

[[Page S439]]

should also have a right to know if recipients of Federal grants are 
engaging in political advocacy and to what extent.
  In the wake of last year's transparency legislation, information on 
Federal grants and their recipients will soon be on a publicly 
available and searchable database. This amendment builds on that 
concept by requiring Federal grant recipients to disclose any and all 
political advocacy activities. The amendment would also require a good-
faith estimate of the grantee's expenditures on political advocacy.
  This, in my view, is a fairly straightforward amendment that adds to 
the transparency of organizations that engage in political advocacy and 
lobbying and I think sheds further light on the whole process of 
getting involved in Federal issues by organizations that actually are 
receiving Federal funding. I believe that is something the American 
people would like to see happen.
  The Transparency Act that was passed last year, as I said earlier, 
will bring about disclosure of those organizations. They will have to 
now disclose, those who receive Federal funds.
  All this amendment does is take that a step further and say that 
those organizations that receive Federal funds need to disclose if they 
are engaging in a form of political advocacy and to what extent--in 
other words, how much money are they spending on those types of 
activities.
  The definition of ``political advocacy'' in the amendment is pretty 
straightforward, but it has to do with:

       (A) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to 
     influence legislation or agency action, including, but not 
     limited to monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements, 
     publicity, or similar activity;
       (B) participating or intervening in (including the 
     publishing or distributing of statements) any political 
     campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for 
     public office, including but not limited to monetary or in-
     kind contributions, endorsements, publicity, or similar, 
     activity;
       (C) participating in any judicial litigation or agency 
     proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or 
     instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are 
     parties, other than litigation in which the entity or award 
     applicant--
       (i) is defendant appearing in its own behalf;
       (ii) is defending its tax-exempt status; or
       iii) is challenging a government decision or action 
     directed specifically at the powers, rights, or duties of 
     that entity or award applicant. . . .

  This is a fairly straightforward amendment. I am simply trying to 
shine additional light on this process. It is in line with the thinking 
behind this underlying bill; that is, bringing greater transparency, 
greater accountability to the process of lobbying and the whole 
exercise that we undertake around here and outside organizations 
undertake in trying to influence Federal legislation and Federal 
issues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 40 to Amendment No. 3

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside, and I have an amendment to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 40 to amendment No. 3.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with. I intend to explain it at a later 
date. There may be a technical change I have to make to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To permit a limited flight exception for necessary State 
                                travel)

       On page 8, line 14, after ``entity'' insert ``or by a 
     Member of Congress, Member's spouse or an immediate family 
     member of either''.
       On page 10, after line 5, insert the following:
       (4) Limited flight exception.--Paragraph 1 of rule XXXV of 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h) For purposes of subparagraph (c)(1) and rule XXXVIII, 
     if there is not more than 1 regularly scheduled flight daily 
     from a point in a Member's State to another point within that 
     Member's State, the Select Committee on Ethics may provide a 
     waiver to the requirements in subparagraph (c)(1) (except in 
     those cases where regular air service is not available 
     between 2 cities) if--
       ``(1) there is no appearance of or actual conflict of 
     interest; and
       ``(2) the Member has the trip approved by the committee at 
     a rate determined by the committee.
     In determining rates under clause (2), the committee may 
     consider Ethics Committee Interpretive Ruling 412.''.
       (5) Disclosure.--
       (A) Rules.--Paragraph 2 of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules 
     of the Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) A Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall--
       ``(1) disclose a flight on an aircraft that is not licensed 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for 
     compensation or hire, excluding a flight on an aircraft 
     owned, operated, or leased by a governmental entity, taken in 
     connection with the duties of the Member, officer, or 
     employee as an officeholder or Senate officer or employee; 
     and
       ``(2) with respect to the flight, file a report with the 
     Secretary of the Senate, including the date, destination, and 
     owner or lessee of the aircraft, the purpose of the trip, and 
     the persons on the trip, except for any person flying the 
     aircraft.
     This subparagraph shall apply to flights approved under 
     paragraph 1(h).''.
       (B) FECA.--Section 304(b) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a 
     candidate (other than a candidate for election to the office 
     of President or Vice President), any flight taken by the 
     candidate (other than a flight designated to transport the 
     President, Vice President, or a candidate for election to the 
     office of President or Vice President) during the reporting 
     period on an aircraft that is not licensed by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to operate for compensation or hire, 
     together with the following information:
       ``(A) The date of the flight.
       ``(B) The destination of the flight.
       ``(C) The owner or lessee of the aircraft.
       ``(D) The purpose of the flight.
       ``(E) The persons on the flight, except for any person 
     flying the aircraft.''.
       (C) Public availability.--Paragraph 2(e) of rule XXXV of 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) The Secretary of the Senate shall make available to 
     the public all disclosures filed pursuant to subparagraphs 
     (f) and (g) as soon as possible after they are received and 
     such matters shall be posted on the Member's official website 
     but no later than 30 days after the trip or flight.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to use this opportunity to again 
focus us on what I think is a very significant issue in this ongoing 
ethics and lobbyist debate, and that is the unfortunate practice, in my 
opinion, and the very clear and huge opportunity for abuse that exists 
when spouses of sitting Members, Senate or House, are lobbyists and act 
as lobbyists.
  Now, the underlying bill and the underlying substitute, as we all 
know, have a prohibition on this issue, and it simply says in that case 
the spouse lobbyist can't directly lobby the Member he or she is 
married to, and that is good. I hope we all agree with that. I hope 
that is a no-brainer, an absolute minimum we would all agree to.
  I have an amendment on which I look forward to voting in the very 
near future. It is amendment No. 9. That would broaden that in a way 
that I think is absolutely necessary. That would simply be a broadening 
to say that a spouse cannot lobby any Member of Congress, House or 
Senate. I think that is necessary if we are going to get real, if we 
are going to get serious in this ethics and lobbying debate, and if 
this bill is going to be a meaningful attempt to right grievous wrongs 
we have seen, including in the last couple of years.
  The Presiding Officer came from the House of Representatives, as did 
I. Unfortunately, as we know, there have been these abuses. Really, the 
abuses fall into two categories; there are not just one but two real 
dangers we are talking about. One is that a lobbyist who is married to 
a sitting Member clearly has unusual access to other Members of 
Congress--forget about his

[[Page S440]]

or her spouse but to other Members. You can't tell me if a lobbyist is 
going in to see a Member and he happens to be married, say, to a female 
Member who is chair of a committee on which that other Member sits, 
that doesn't cross the other Member's mind. You can't tell me that is 
not part of the equation; that is not part of the backdrop on that 
lobbying relationship. Clearly, that spouse lobbyist is going to have 
extraordinary, unusual access to all Members, or many Members, not 
simply the Member to whom he or she is married.
  Of course, there are all sorts of social occasions where we get 
together, as we should, as families, with spouses. So there is that 
very real issue. But there is a second very real issue which, in my 
opinion, is even more serious and more pernicious and that is the clear 
opportunity for moneyed interests, special interests, to write checks 
directly into the family bank account of a Member through the lobbyist 
spouse.

  I wish I could stand here and say that this was a hypothetical. I 
wish I could stand here and say that this was a solution searching for 
a problem in the real world. I can't. This has happened. This does 
happen. There have been cases, including in the House, that have been 
in the press in the last year or two where this does happen, and 
spouses are making big salaries from interests that have very important 
matters before Congress and before the Member to whom that lobbyist 
spouse is married.
  This is not theoretical. This is not a solution looking for a 
problem. This is real and this is real abuse. It is simply a bribe by 
another name because it is a conduit to send significant amounts of 
money to the family bank account--the same family bank account that the 
Member, of course, lives on and relies on and enjoys.
  I think this is a very serious issue. Clearly, if we are bringing up 
a bill that is about two things, ethics and lobbying, you can't ignore 
this issue. This issue is right in the middle of it. It is all about 
lobbying. It is all about ethics. It is all about both of those things, 
that this whole debate is about.
  Let me point out that in my amendment I do include an exception. I 
think it is a fair exception. I can make an argument to have no 
exceptions, and I was tempted to do that. I wanted to bend over 
backwards to be fair and meet any legitimate questions out there. There 
is an exception if the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more 
before the marriage happened, and/or before the Member's first election 
to Congress happened. In that situation, I think what it would mean is 
that this spouse had a real, bona fide career and was doing this and 
built up that practice, way before the marriage relationship ever 
happened or the representation relationship--membership in the House or 
Senate--ever happened. I think that legitimately is a different 
situation than the others.
  Again, I can make the argument for no exceptions. I can certainly 
understand the sentiment: get rid of that exception. But in an 
abundance of trying to meet reasonable questions, reasonable 
objections, I included that exception.
  I urge all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to take a hard 
look and then to vote for the amendment because this goes to the heart 
of what we are talking about. This has been a real abuse. It is subject 
to continuing abuse. If we do not address it, this exercise, frankly, 
is not going to have much credibility in the eyes of the American 
people. If we do not address it, we are not going to be doing enough to 
restore the confidence of the American people in this institution and 
the institution across the Rotunda, the House of Representatives.
  This has to be at the center of our debate, and I look forward to 
continuing the debate. I will be happy to answer any objections or 
questions and continue that debate in the next day or two and look 
forward to a vote on this very central amendment. I will specifically 
talk to the majority leader about a vote. He has not responded yet. 
Certainly, I cannot imagine a reasonable, fair debate on this question 
of ethics and lobbying and yet we do not at least vote on this issue of 
spouses lobbying Congress. Of course, I hope we vote the right way and 
forbid it.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the continuation of this discussion 
and the vote and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I announce that there will be no more 
rollcall votes tonight. However, I caution Members, there will be 
possibly two rollcall votes, certainly one, tomorrow morning. No more 
rollcall votes tonight.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 38, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 38 be the 
pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk, and 
I ask the amendment be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 38), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FREE ATTENDANCE AT A BONA FIDE CONSTITUENT EVENT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph 1(c) of rule XXXV of the Senate 
     Rules is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) Subject to the restrictions in subparagraph (a)(2), 
     free attendance at a bona fide constituent event permitted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (h).''.
       (b) In General.--Paragraph 1 of rule XXXV of the Senate 
     Rules is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer 
     of free attendance in the Member's home state at a 
     convention, conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, 
     dinner event, site visit, viewing, reception, or similar 
     event, provided by a sponsor of the event, if--
       ``(A) the cost of meals provided the Member officer or 
     employee does not exceed $50;
       ``(B)(i) the event is sponsored by bona fide constituents 
     of, or a group that consists primarily of bona fide 
     constituents of, the Member (or the Member by whom the 
     officer or employee is employed); and
       ``(ii) the event will be attended primarily by a group of 
     at least 5 bona fide constituents of the Member (or the 
     Member by whom the officer or employee is employed) provided 
     that an individual registered to lobby under the Federal 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act shall not attend the event; and
       ``(C)(i) the Member, officer, or employee participates in 
     the event as a speaker or a panel participant, by presenting 
     information related to Congress or matters before Congress, 
     or by performing a ceremonial function appropriate to the 
     Member's, officer's, or employee's official position; or
       ``(ii) attendance at the event is appropriate to the 
     performance of the official duties or representative function 
     of the Member, officer, or employee.
       ``(2) A Member, officer, or employee who attends an event 
     described in clause (1) may accept a sponsor's unsolicited 
     offer of free attendance at the event for an accompanying 
     individual if others in attendance will generally be 
     similarly accompanied or if such attendance is appropriate to 
     assist in the representation of the Senate.
       ``(3) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `free 
     attendance' has the same meaning as in subparagraph (d).''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe both sides are in agreement 
with the modification.
  We are prepared to voice vote the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 38), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to clarify that this exception 
applies only when there are at least five constituents attending the 
event with a Member and at least half of the group in attendance are 
constituents.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S441]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 42 to Amendment No. 3

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself 
     and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 42 to 
     amendment No. 3.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit an earmark from being included in the classified 
portion of a report accompanying a measure unless the measure includes 
   a general program description, funding level, and the name of the 
                        sponsor of that earmark)

       On page 7, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``4. It shall not be in order to consider any bill, 
     resolution, or conference report that contains an earmark 
     included in any classified portion of a report accompanying 
     the measure unless the bill, resolution, or conference report 
     includes, in unclassified language to the greatest extent 
     possible, a general program description, funding level, and 
     the name of the sponsor of that earmark.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a brief explanation, and then I wish 
to set aside the amendment. But essentially what this amendment does is 
very simple. It relates to classified earmarks and simply says:

       It shall not be in order to consider any bill, resolution, 
     or conference report that contains an earmark included in any 
     classified portion of a report accompanying the measure 
     unless the bill, resolution, or conference report includes, 
     in unclassified language, to the greatest extent possible, a 
     general program description, funding level, and the name of 
     the sponsor of that earmark.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, yesterday evening I voted to table an 
amendment that would have prohibited authorized committees and 
leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members 
of any candidate or Federal officeholder connected to the committee. I 
appreciate the concerns raised by Senator Vitter regarding allegations 
of abuse in this area, and believe action should be taken when the 
Senate Rules Committee undertakes comprehensive campaign finance reform 
later this year. I look forward to working with Chairwoman Feinstein 
and the rest of my colleagues at that time to deal with the concerns 
raised by Senator Vitter.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________